Jharkhand High Court
Ramu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.8184 of 2021
------
Ramu Mahto .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 28.10.2021
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 91
of 2014 (G.R. No. 2326 of 2014) instituted under Sections 364, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of
anticipatory bail.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against
the petitioner is that the petitioner 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 petitioner are all false. It is
next submitted that the co-accused-Birendra Kumar Dangi, Raju Sao, Raj Kr.
Gupta and Basant Ganjhu @ Purushottam Ganjhu who faced the trial in S.T.
No.178 of 2015 vide judgment dated 06.01.2018 passed by Session Judge,
Hazaribag, they have been acquitted, consequent upon the informant is not
supporting the case of the prosecution and the co-accused, with similar
allegation has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this court
vide order dated 06.10.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.7515 of 2021, therein it has
been mentioned that, the parties have amicably compromised the case and they
do not want to proceed with the case. It is then submitted that the petitioner is
ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. 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 six 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 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 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 numbers and a copy of
their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that he will not
change his 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.)
Pappu/
