Heera Kerketta @ Heeralal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3671 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    A.B.A. No.7165 of 2021
                               ------

Heera Kerketta @ Heeralal Kerketta @ Hiralal Kerketta .... .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

     For the Petitioner          : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
     For the State               : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P
                                       ------
     Order No.02 Dated- 28.09.2021
            Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

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 A.H.T.U. (Simdega) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2017 (G.R. No.475 of 2017) (S-II), instituted under Sections 363, 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75/81 of Juvenile Justice Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons have allured and taken away the twelve years old son of the informant namely Bimal Bilung. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co- accused-Ganesh Minz and the co-accused Shimla Bara and Deepak Baraik who have faced the trial vide S.T. No.191 of 2018 have been acquitted by judgment dated 03.10.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Simdega. Consequent upon the informant who has been examined as P.W.3 in the said Sessions Trial they have stated that the informant was not present in her house when her son went away and she is totally ignorant about the facts of the case, hence, there is no material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Simdega in connection with A.H.T.U. (Simdega) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2017 (G.R. No.475 of 2017) (S-II) with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his 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.) Pappu/