Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Mahto @ Suryanath Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 7515 of 2021
------
1. Suraj Mahto @ Suryanath Prasad
2. Manoj Thakur ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 06.10.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners personally undertakes to
remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within
two weeks.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are
ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Barkagaon P.S. Case No.91 of 2014 (G.R. No. 2326 of 2014)
registered under sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons
abducted Bhawani Prasad Dangi and Dinesh Kumar. It is further
submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false
and drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 at page no.18-
25 of the brief, which is a copy of the certified copy of the joint
compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of Sessions
Judge, Hazaribag, it is submitted that therein, it has been
mentioned that the parties have amicably compromised the case
and the parties does not want to proceed with the case. It is next
submitted that in the trial of the co-accused-Dineshwar Kumar, the
informant has been examined as P.W.5 but he has not supported
the case of the prosecution. Similarly, the other witnesses of the
case Bhawani Prasad Dangi and Dineshwar Kumar have also not
supported the case of the prosecution and in this respect, learned
counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the
copy of the certified copy of the depositions of the said witnesses
kept at page no.26-29 of the brief and also drawing attention of this
Court to the certified copy of the judgment delivered by the
Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. Case No.178 of 2015 dated
06.01.2018, it is submitted that all the four co-accused persons have
been acquitted. It is then submitted that the petitioners are ready
and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence,
it is submitted that the petitioners 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 petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of
six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribag, in connection with
Barkagaon P.S. Case No.91 of 2014 (G.R. No. 2326 of 2014) with the
condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation
of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a
copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the
undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers
during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid
down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
