Abha Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2026:JHHC:5023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 76 of 2023

Abha Prasad, aged about 49 years, wife of Shashi Kant Prasad, resident of E-80, A-Block, Near Wireless Office, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Srikant Prasad @ Shrikant Prasad, aged about 65 years, son of late Lal Bihari Prasad

¶8

Pushpa Prasad, aged about 51 years, wife of Srikant Prasad @ Shrikant Prasad

¶9

Shruti Prasad, aged about 24 years, daughter of Srikant Prasad @ Shrikant Prasad

¶10

Nishant Prasad, aged about 23 years, son of Srikant Prasad @ Shrikant Prasad

¶11

All are resident of H. No. E/80, A- Block, Khutadih, P.O. & P.S.Sonari, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum

¶12

Opp. Parties

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For O.P. Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate

¶16

By the Court:-

¶17

Heard the parties.

¶18

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in A.B.P. No. 1763 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby and where under, opposite party nos.2 to 5 to this criminal

¶19

1

¶20

Cr.M.P. No.76 of 2023

¶21

(2026:JHHC:5023)

¶22

miscellaneous petition who were the petitioners of anticipatory bail petition, have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail and to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 to 5 in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022.

¶23

¶24

The brief fact of the case is that at about 07:30 pm on 03.08.2022, the opposite party no.2 being the elder brother of the husband of the informant, opposite party no.3 being his wife, their daughter being opposite party no.4 and their son being opposite party no.5 along with Manish Kumar and Ritesh Kumar and ten other gunda elements reached the place of occurrence and attacked the informant and his children and when the sons of the informant came to her rescue, the co-accused- Manish Kumar and Ritesh Kumar assaulted the son of the informant with sword and attacked him with knife. The opposite party nos.2 to 5 filed A.B.P. No. 1763 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur considered that this case is counter blast of Sonari P.S. Case No. 112 of 2022 and 124 of 2022. The opposite party no.2 herein alleged to have sustained injury by the members of the petitioner’s party. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur considered that there was previous enmity between the parties and series of litigation is pending between the parties regarding land dispute. The learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur further considered that the injury sustained by the alleged victim are simple in nature, except one of the injuries which was found to be grievous but it was not on the vital part of the body and thus considering, granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos.2 to 5 herein.

¶25

2

¶26

Cr.M.P. No.76 of 2023

¶27

(2026:JHHC:5023)

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who is the informant of the case has stated that her son Akshay Kumar has sustained cut injury on his hand due to assault made by Manish Kumar and Ritesh Kumar by knife requiring eight stitches. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶29

The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that specific allegation of assault is upon Manish Kumar and Ritesh Kumar who are not the opposite parties of this case. The only allegation against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 is that they were present at the time of occurrence. It is then submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 5 that in the absence of direct and specific allegation against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 of inflicting any injury upon the victim, no illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in granting privilege of anticipatory bail to the opposite party nos.2 to 5. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that there is no allegation against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 of inflicting any injury. The main allegation is against the co-accused-Manish Kumar

¶31

3

¶32

Cr.M.P. No.76 of 2023

¶33

(2026:JHHC:5023)

¶34

and Ritesh Kumar who are not the opposite parties of this case. The undisputed fact remains that series of litigation is going on between the parties and this is a counter blast case of Sonari P.S. Case No. 112 of 2022 which was lodged on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 of this case and in the occurrence of that case the opposite party no.2 herein sustained injury. So far as this case is concerned, all injuries except one is simple in nature and the grievous injury is not on the vital part of the body rather it is on the hand that too was inflicted by the co-accused persons.

¶35

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason for this Court to accede to the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 to 5 of this case in terms of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in A.B.P. No. 1763 of 2022 or to quash the said order dated 06.12.2022 passed in A.B.P. No. 1763 of 2022.

¶36