Suresh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Suresh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: upon arrest/surrender within three weeks, release on bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka, in connection with Complaint (P.C.R) Case No. 973/2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 323/379/504/341/354 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint (P.C.R) Case No. 973/2023, is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, the court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender within three weeks, he is to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, A.B.A. No. 4000 of 2024 (decided 23.08.2024, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar): Suresh Mandal, apprehending arrest for offences punishable under Sections 323/379/504/341/354 IPC in connection with Complaint (P.C.R) Case No. 973/2023 (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka), sought anticipatory bail. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated along with his wife/co-accused Sabitri Devi due to previous enmity; that no occurrence took place on 20.03.2023 as alleged by opposite party no. 2 (Pushpa Devi @ Puspa Devi); that even taking the complaint and the solemn affirmation recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C as true, the complainant suffered only simple injury and told the court during the enquiry that there was no mark of injury on her body; and that the allegation of snatching her silver chain valued at Rs.16,000/ was false. Co-accused Sabitri Devi had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka (order dated 06.05.2024, A.B.P No. 162/2024). Considering the materials on record, the court enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail: upon arrest/surrender within three weeks, release on a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4000 of 2024

Suresh Mandal

... … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Pushpa Devi @ Puspa Devi ... … CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

... … Opposite Parties

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

-----

03/23.08.2024 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the

offences punishable under Sections 323/379/504/341/354 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner and his wife – Sabitri Devi (co-accused) have been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. In fact, no such occurrence had taken place on 20.03.2023 as has been mentioned by the opposite party no. 2 in her complaint. Even if the content of the complaint and the solemn affirmation (SA) recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C are taken to be true, the complainant has received simple injury. However, on being asked by the court during the enquiry, she has stated that there is no mark of injury on her body. So far as the allegation that the petitioner had snatched silver chain from the neck of the complainant having value of Rs.16,000/, the same is completely false and incorrect. Moreover, co-accused Sabitri Devi has already been granted anticipatory bail vide impugned order dated 06.05.2024 itself passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in A.B.P No. 162/2024. Under the

said circumstance, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 oppose the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dumka, in connection with Complaint (P.C.R) Case No. 973/2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

Manish

A.B.A. No. 4000 of 2024