Dismissed¶21

Morha Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2025Cr.M.P./3967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr.M.P No.3967 of 2023; decided 14.02.2025 by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; quashing of bail order dated 11.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 2440/2023 by Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi; Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 25/2023 dated 04.04.2023; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC; landed property dispute; alleged false representation as descendants of original Raiyat; bail bond Rs.10,000/- with two sureties; disputed question of fact to be raised at trial; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned bail order dated 11.10.2023; it did not require any interference by this Court. ¶21

Morha Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No.3967 of 2023

¶2

Morha Toppo @ Mohra Toppo aged about 65 years son of Late Kadiya @ Kariya Toppo @ Oraon, resident of village-Baram, P.O. Mahilong, P.S.-Tatisilwai, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835103.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

Mangra Toppo, aged about 78 years, son of Late Kode Toppo.

¶7

Sudhir Toppo, aged about 68 years, son of Late Kode Toppo,

¶8

Pradeep Toppo, aged about 38 years, son of Mangra Toppo,

¶9

Krishna Toppo, aged about 28 years, son of Sudhir Toppo,

¶10

Sunil Toopo, aged about 37 years, son of Sudhir Toppo. From Sr. Nos. 2 to 6 are resident of Baram Kunwa Toli, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Tatisilway, District-Ranchi-835103 (Jharkhand)

¶11

… Opposite Parties

¶12

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Adv. For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P.

¶14

Order No.06/Dated- 14.02.2025

¶15

1. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶16

2. Instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing of the bail order dated 11.10.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 2440/2023 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi, whereby and where under, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III, Ranchi had been pleased to allow the A.B.P. No. 2440/2023 and enlarge the opposite parties on bail by furnishing the bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite parties have taken bail order in their favour representing the false statement about being themselves descendants of original Raiyat. This case pertains to commission of offence under Sections 420,

¶18

Page | 1

¶19

467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. pertaining to dispute about landed property.

¶20

4. It appears that learned A.P.P. appearing for State has opposed the prayer raised on behalf of the petitioner and defended the impugned order which is based on consideration of undisputed facts and the present petitioner is raising a disputed fact which has to be raised at the time of trial.

¶21

5. Considering the same, the rival submissions of the parties and impugned order, it appears that one F.I.R. being Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 25/2023 dated 04.04.2023 has been lodged at the instance of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420/467/468, 471, 34 of the I.P.C. which the allegation inter-alia is that accused (opposite party nos. 2-6) representing themselves the descendants of petitioner’s ancestors, are selling the land of the petitioner, hence, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order which required any interference by this court. Hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

¶22

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶23

Amar/-

¶24

Page | 2

Morha Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morha Toppo 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

Manoj Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Quresha Begum Alias Guresha Begum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Some Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Shoaib Akhtar Alias Md. S. Akhtar Alias Md. Soaib Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand