Allowed

Rameshwar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2024Cr.M.P./3107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting the petitioners' plea for extension of surrender time. Citing their advanced age and inability to find bailers, the Court extended time by six weeks and allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.06.2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge is quashed, and an extension of six weeks for surrender is granted.

Rameshwar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.3107 of 2024

¶3

------

¶4

Rameshwar Mehta age about 25 years S/o Late Lakho Mehta, R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, Dist- Hazaribagh.

¶5

Sanjay Mehta @ Sanjay Kumar Mehta, age about 20 years S/o Late Lakho Mehta, R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, DistHazaribagh.

¶6

Ram Kumar Mehta @ Raj Kumar Mehta age about 22 years S/o Late Lakho Mehta, R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, DistHazaribagh.

¶7

Rohit Kumar Mehta age about 20 years S/o Arun Mehta R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, Dist- Hazaribagh.

¶8

Ashish Mehta @ Ashish Kumar Mehta age about 20 years S/o Mahesh Mehta R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, DistHazaribagh.

¶9

Birju Mehta @ Birju Kumar Age about 23 years S/o Gandori Mehta R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, DistHazaribagh.

¶10

Aamereka Mahto @ Amereka Mahto age about 29 years S/o Pokhan Mahto R/o Gotiya Padma Op, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, DistHazaribagh

¶11

Abhimanyu Kumar @ Abhimanyu Mehta, S/o Arjun Mehta age about 23 years.

¶12

Mahesh Mehta, S/o Late Sugan Mahto, age about 22 years, R/o Gotiya Padma, Op, P.O & P.S.- Barhi, Dist- Hazaribagh.

¶13

… Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Md. Altamas Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶17

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶18

¶19

Cr. M.P. No.3107 of 2024

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.06.2024 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh rejected the prayer of the petitioners for extension of time to surrender in the trial court in terms of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.193 of 2024 in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No.19 of 2023.

¶21

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were given the privileges of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.193 of 2024 on 18.04.2024 as no injury report of the victim could be furnished by the prosecution even though one of the offences involved is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to financial difficulties, the petitioners could not furnish the bail bond on time and further, the petitioners could not arrange the bailers immediately and without considering the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh has rejected the prayer. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶23

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the conduct of the petitioners shows their negligence. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are old persons and

¶25

2 Cr. M.P. No.3107 of 2024

¶26

the petitioners are altogether nine persons who were granted the anticipatory bail. It appears that the petitioners are related to one another. So, considering the undisputed fact that they are nine persons, certainly, it is not easy to arrange eighteen solvent bailers for them to the extent of Rs.15,000/- each.

¶27

Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh has committed a gross illegality by though not disputing that the petitioners are old persons and they could not arrange the bailers in time, in not extending the period of time for the petitioners to surrender in terms of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.193 of 2024 in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No.19 of 2023. Hence, the order dated 01.06.2024 passed in M.C.A. No.26 of 2024 arising out of A.B.P. No.193 of 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh be quashed and set aside.

¶28

Accordingly, the order dated 01.06.2024 passed in M.C.A. No.26 of 2024 in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No.19 of 2023 arising out of A.B.P. No.193 of 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh is quashed and set aside.

¶29

Prayer to extend the time to the petitioners to surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in terms of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed in A.B.P. No. 193 of 2024 in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No.19 of 2023 is extended by six weeks from the date of this order.

¶30

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02^nd of December, 2024 AFR/ Saroj

¶33

¶34

Cr. M.P. No.3107 of 2024

Rameshwar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fulmani Devi Vs Lobin Kishku

Nane Oraon Alias Nane Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaurav Saluja Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaggu Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand