Basant Gonjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since petitioner no. 1 has been arrested he is not pressing this anticipatory bail application.

¶18

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn as regards petitioner no.1

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

As regards petitioner nos. 2 to 7, apprehending their arrest in connection with Tamar P.S. Case No. 103 of 2022 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶21

As per FIR, allegation is that while informant parties were cutting the paddy at Plot Nos. 2067 and 2069, the petitioners armed with farsa and danda reached there and started quarreling.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute for harvesting paddy crops which is

¶23

disputed one between the parties. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners rather they have been named in the FIR as per perpetrator in the crime and assaulting to the informant party. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. For the same occurrence, petitioners have also went to police station for lodging the FIR but their case was not registered although petitioners parties have also sustained injuries. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶24

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-cum-injured has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that there are two injured persons. One has received injury on the forearm and another has been brutally assaulted on head and was treated at RIMS, Ranchi. The injuries are likely to cause death and he was admitted for one month in the hospital. It is submitted that all the accused persons forming unlawful assembly including the petitioners in a pre-planned manner were harvesting the paddy crops of the informant and on protest they have brutally assaulted with intention to kill the said Maheshwar Singh Munda. Petitioner no.1 has been arrested in this case and others are still not co-operating in the investigation.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials on record showing their participation and injury sustained by the victim, Maheshwar Singh Munda which is on the vital parts of the body likely to cause death, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, which stands rejected.

¶26

Petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.

¶27

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶28

R.K/

Basant Gonjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Gonjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safiullah Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Malay Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Maskur Alias Maskur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md Abdul Wahab Vs Ashok Kumar Singh And Ors.

Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Pandey Alias Binod Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand