Jharkhand High Court
Ramkumar Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 967 of 2021
Ramkumar Tirkey ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Jha ,Adv.
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha ,Addl. P.P.
02 / 23.03.2021
Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two
weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned
counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp
Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Barabazar (Sadar) P.S. Case No.121 of 2016 (G.R. No. 301 of 2016)
arising out of Complaint Case No. 1596 of 2015 registered under
sections 420/468/467/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused Roshan Uraon
has executed a sale deed in favour of the informant by suppressing
the material fact that the land in respect of which the said sale deed
was executed by Roshan Uraon was earlier been sold to some other
persons by the ancestor of Roshan Uraon. It is further submitted that
the allegation against the petitioner are all false and the only
allegation against this petitioner is that he was purchaser of the said
land and civil suit is going on between the parties and the dispute is
basically a civil dispute. It is then submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case and
also undertakes that he will not go over or near the land in respect of
which sale deed has been executed till it is decided by civil court
where the suit is going on and he also undertakes to abide by the
judgment of said civil suit. It is further submitted that the co-accused
with similar allegations has already been granted privilege of
anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 22.10.2019 passed in
ABA no. 6871 of 2019, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be
given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned C.J.M., Hazaribag, in connection with Barabazar (Sadar) P.S.
Case No.121 of 2016 (G.R. No. 301 of 2016) arising out of Complaint
Case No. 1596 of 2015 with the condition that the petitioner will
cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his
mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below
with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number
during the pendency of the case and also undertakes that he will not
go over or near the land in respect of which sale deed has been
executed till it is decided by civil court where the suit is going on and
he also undertakes to abide by the judgment of said civil suit subject
to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
