Raj Kumar Tanti vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2244 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      [Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction]
                          A. B. A. No. 3024 of 2022
       Raj Kumar Tanti                                      .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                              .. ... ... Opp. Party(s)
                                       ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s)/State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.

......

05/ 24.06.2022. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the petitioner along with two co-accused /petitioners has earlier preferred A.B.A. No.4643 of 2018 and this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.02.2019 has been pleased to grant anticipatory bail of two co-accused/ petitioners, namely, Ajit Tanti and Sujit Tanti whereas prayer of anticipatory bail of this petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn.

Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that petitioner- Raj Kumar Tanti has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No.116/2017 (G.R. No.818 of 2017), registered under Sections 341/ 323 /324/ 325/ 504/307 /34 IPC and subsequently Section 302 IPC has been added after death of the informant.

Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that co-accused, Harendra Tanti has faced trial vide Sessions Trial No.73 of 2018 and in terms of the judgment dated 08.02.2022, said Harendra Tanti has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 323/34, 341/34, 504/34, 307/34, 324/34 & 302/34 IPC.

Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Para-30 of the judgment dated 08.02.2022 in the case of Harendra Tanti may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

"30. The primary injury report of Ujjawal Mandal was never proved by the doctor P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 when they were examined during trial."

Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, learned counsel has thus, submitted, that if the trial will end in acquittal, why the person/ petitioner be sent to the jail by refusing his prayer for anticipatory bail.

Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail has submitted, that there is direct allegation of assault upon the victim by lathi and Hasua causing grievous injury against the petitioner as per the FIR. He has further submitted, that the injury has already been found to be grievous in the injury report, as discussed, the relevant part at Page 6 and 7 of the said judgment, which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-

"On dated 02.11.17 at 11.05 pm at Sub-divisional Hospital, Rajmahal, examined Ujjawal Mandal, S/o Govind Mandal and noted the injury no.1 and injury no.4. After giving primary treatment referred this patient to higher centre for further treatment and investigation. On dated 25.11.17, the patient party submitted the CT Scan report and prescription from Deptt. of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of West Bengal Malda Medical College and Hospital which shows acute epiduil Haemorrhage with mass report of left frontal tempro perital convexity. Acute chin extra axixal blood density collection at right temporal convexity. Pilateral frontal and right temporal lober haemorrhage contusion subarachnoid haemorrhage with intentorial interhaemispharic. Fissure blood. Calvariel fracture. Scalp haemotoma and scalp swelling and left fronto temporal perital region. Cerebral edema.

So, on the basis of above finding, one injury is grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. All documents attached with injury report, duly signed by me. This supplementary injury report is in my pen and signature which is marked as Ext.1/3.

In cross by defence, he said I found only one injury on the person of Rina Sarkar. The second injury is not my finding, it is complaint of injured. The document on the basis of which I prepared supplementary injury report has been produced before me by relatives of patient and not by police. The primary injury report of Govind Mandal is not proved by me because it is not before me. The supplementary injury report of Govind Mandal is given by patient and not by the police. Injury of Govind Mandal can be found by hard and blunt substance. He has not proved the primary injury report of Ujjawal Mandal as it is not before me. The documents of supplementary report is given by patient and it is true that I did not find any injury caused by sharp cutting weapon on the person of Ujjawal Mandal. It is true that the injury on the right temporal of Ujjawal Mandal can be caused by falling forcefully on sold hard surface."

Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State has thus, submitted, that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has already been dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the order dated dated 28.02.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.4643 of 2018, as such, there is no fresh ground for reconsideration of prayer for anticipatory bail, as judgment cited by the petitioner is with respect to co-accused and not with respect to the petitioner.

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direction allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, is directed to submit a report that :-

(a) Whether any proceeding under Section 174A I.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner or not, while declaring him absconder during filing of the charge-sheet?

(b)What action has been taken by the investigating officer to apprehend the accused/petitioner?

(c)If the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused pursuant to the rejection of the anticipatory bail application on 28.02.2019 as more than three years have already elapsed, the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj will seek an explanation from the investigating officer with regard to day to day investigation of the case.

List this case after submission of the desired report. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj through FAX or e-mail at once.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/