Krishna Modi @ vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5136 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 724 of 2022
                                ------

Krishna Modi @ Krishna Kumar Modi & Ors. ... ... Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... Respondents

--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

--------

For the Appellants : Mr. S.P. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shiv Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P.

   For the Respondent No. 2     : None
                                --------
   Order No. 05: Dated: 19 December, 2022
                           th

Learned counsel for the parties is present. Learned Addl.P.P. for the State seeks adjournment to procure the case diary.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in A.B.P. No. 1324 of 2022, whereby and where under anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected in connection with SC/ST (Complaint) Case No. 82/2018 for the offence under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and section 3(r)(w) of SC/ST (POA), 1989.

It has been pointed out that the entire allegation made against the appellants in the SC/ST Complaint Case No. 82/2018 are false and fabricated in view of the fact that it is a counter-blast of the earlier case instituted by appellant no. 3 Kanchan Devi in which the complainant of the present case is one of the accused as Accused no.

8. Further it has been pointed out that it is a landed property dispute which is an admitted fact as evident from the complaint petition itself. Further, it has been pointed out in para 4 of the S.A. of the complainant in which the complainant has admitted that the appellants had assured him to delete his name as an accused in the earlier FIR instituted by the appellant no. 3 but since the name of the complainant could not be deleted from the FIR and, therefore, this present case has been instituted by way of SC/ST Complaint Case No. 82 of 2018 by the complainant against appellants and, therefore, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail because of the false and fabricated allegations made in the complaint case.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case. It is found that the learned counsel had appeared for the respondent no. 2, the complainant, by duly executed vakalatnama, but, he is not present today to assist the Court.

One last opportunity is provided to the respondent no. 2, to appear in this case, failing which an appropriate order shall be passed.

Learned defence counsel appearing for the appellants also seeks adjournment to file a supplementary affidavit, in order to bring the certified copy of summoning order and deposition of the enquiry witnesses examined during the course of inquiry.

As prayed for, let this case be adjourned.

In the meantime, interim order dated 30.11.2022 will remain in force till the next date subject to the condition that the appellants will co-operate in the proceeding in the court below in connection with SC/ST (Complaint) Case No. 82/2018 for the offence under sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and section 3(r)(w) of SC/ST (POA), 1989.

(Navneet Kumar, J.) MM