Jharkhand High Court
Niraj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 316 of 2022
------
Niraj Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 31.01.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two
weeks after resumption of the Court in physical mode.
In view of the personal undertaking of the 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 Balidih
P.S. Case No.216 of 2021 registered under sections 323/380/366/
449/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-
accused persons trespassed to the house of the informant and took
the signature of the daughter-in-law of the informant forcibly on a
plain paper and also forcibly took the informant, her son and
daughter-in-law to the police station where the informant and her
both sons were abused and police demanded Rs.10,000/-. It is
further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all
false and the daughter-in-law of the informant- Madhu Devi filed
Balidih P.S. Case No.216 of 2021 prior to lodging of this case. It is
next submitted that there is a delay in filing the complaint which
upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the FIR
of this case was registered. It is further submitted that the compliant
is not supported by any affidavit and in violation of the ratio of the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka
Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported
in (2015) 6 SCC 287 without the complaint being supported by any
affidavit, the complaint has been referred to police under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to
cooperate with the investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted
that the co-accused person has already been given the privilege of
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2022, in A.B.A.
No. 9779 of 2021. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be also
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., Bokaro, in connection with Balidih P.S. Case
No.216 of 2021 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 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
subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
