Allowed

Hari Tiwari Alias Dhirendra Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2024B.A./4395/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in an extremist levy/ransom case where cognizance was not taken under UAP Act sections for want of sanction. Court noted general and omnibus allegations without any specific role attributed to the petitioner, and that he was already on bail in other cases. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hari Tiwari Alias Dhirendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4395 of 2024

¶2

Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari aged about 34 years, son of Vijay Tiwari, resident of Baralota, PO & PS Palamau Town, District Palamau.

¶3

..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶7

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, APP

¶8

¶9

05/06.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for

¶10

the State.

¶11

The supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner today is taken on record.

¶12

At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially he has filed Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 2072 of 2023 Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file bail petition under section 439 of Cr.PC on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed in this case under sections 353, 332, 333, 307, 326 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act while for want of sanction u/s 45 of the UAP Act, no cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 16, 17 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act against the petitioner. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has passed the order on 03.04.2024 dismissing the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum by way of filing appropriate application, hence this bail petition was filed.

¶13

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant– Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari with prayer to release on bail in connection with A.T.S Case No. 07 of 2023 registered under sections 353, 332, 333, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sections 16, 17, 20 of the U.A.P. Act subsequently charge-sheet was filed u/s 353, 332, 333, 307, 326 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms

¶14

Act, pending in the court of learned A.J.C cum Special Judge, A.T.S at Ranchi.

¶15

The FIR of this case was lodged against the 12 named accused persons including the present petitioner and unknown persons wherein the allegations are made that the informant had received the secret information that one Aman Sao @ Aman Sahu who was in jail under a conspiracy with his associates Akash Rai @ Monu, Hari Tiwari @ Dhirendra Tiwari present petitioner herein, Boby Saw @ Sidhart Sao, Mayank Singh and others extremist have been threatening to the businessman, contractors, coal transporters, the officials of the coal excavating companies, truck owner association, directors for the purpose of recovering the levy and ransoms had been creating terror in among the people at large and whereby they have also purchased AK-47 like automatic weapons, pistol, carbine revolver etc. have also damaged several institutions and had been also imperiling the development work of the State.

¶16

From very perusal of this FIR, it is found that the general and omnibus allegation had been made against the present petitioner alongwith other named accused and the unknown persons being involved in extremists activities. In the whole FIR, no one victim has been shown attributing specific role to the present petitioner. So far as the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is concerned as submitted by learned APP for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed the supplementary affidavit just today and he has also annexed the bail orders in all the cases he is already on bail except one case.

¶17

In view of the above, the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in aforesaid case with the following conditions:

¶18

I. The applicant shall co-operate in the investigation, inquiry and trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed by the learned trial court without any reasonable cause. II. The applicant shall not threaten the witness or tamper with

¶19

¶20

any evidence and

¶21

III. In breach of any of the condition, the learned trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant without any further reference to this Court.

¶22

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶23

RKM

¶24

Hari Tiwari Alias Dhirendra Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hari Tiwari Alias Dhirendra Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moinuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prashant Sen Alias Prakash Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Firoj Ansari Alias MD Firoj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand