Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Rungta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.8941 of 2021
------
1. Santosh Kumar Rungta
2. Sony Rungta
3. Doman Das .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bikash Rungta .... .... .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 06.12.2021
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects
pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks from the date of this order.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No.196
of 2020 instituted under Section 406, 420, 467, 468 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation
against the petitioners is that the petitioners have sold his joint family property
with the informant; in favour of the petitioner No.2 and the petitioner No.3 is
the witness in the said sale-deed. It is submitted that the allegation against the
petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner No.1 is having
possession over the land in question and only to harass the petitioners, this false
case has been foisted. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of
impersonation of the executant of the sale-deed. It is then submitted that no
offence punishable under the law is made out against the petitioners in view of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Md.
Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar [2009 (8) SCC 751]. It is also submitted that the
dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is lastly submitted that
the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the
case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the
Court of learned C.J.M., Seraikella within six weeks from today and in the event
of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Seraikella in connection with
Seraikella P.S. Case No.196 of 2020 with the condition that they will co-operate
with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer
as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy
of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their
mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Animesh/
