Jharkhand High Court
Soniya Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 11268 of 2022
1. Soniya Devi
2. Sangita Devi @ Gita Devi
3. Amit Kumar Ram @ Amit Ram
4. Amar Ram
5. Sandev Kumar Ram
6. Dinesh Kumar Ram
7. Jagranath Ram ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
.....
Order No.02/ Dated:21.02.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhurki P.S. Case No. 60
of 2022 instituted under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/307/504/506 of
the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved to this Court for grant
of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per F.I.R, allegation is that while informant was ploughing his field
by tractor, meanwhile, accused persons including the petitioners armed
with deadly weapons i.e. sword, iron rod, knife, bhala came and assaulted
the informant and others with intent to kill them and also pelted stone at
them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioners are
innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been
falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that earlier the petitioners
were on police bail and after completion of the investigation, the charge-
sheet has been submitted against the petitioners under Sections
147/148/149/323/324/325/341/504 of the Indian Penal Code which are
under bailable offences. Due to cognizance of offence under Section 307
of IPC, the petitioners reasonably apprehends of being arrested.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision rendered
in the case of Dinesh Kumar Versus The State of Jharkhand, reported in
2011(3) East Cr. C. 430 (Jhr), wherein it has been held as follows:
" I have gone through the documents placed before me. Since
the petitioner had appeared before the police and he was on
police bail and even after submission of charge sheet only
notice has been issued for securing his appearance, I do not
feel that present anticipatory bail application is maintainable.
If the petitioner was previously on bail, only because
cognizance has been taken for the offence which are non-
bailable, bail should not be refused. If he appears before the
Court after receiving notice or summon. At this juncture, I
also intend to mention another aspect in which the accused
persons are released on bail under section 436 Cr.P.C. In a
case registered for bailable offence and subsequently if
charge sheet is submitted against them for non-bailable
offences and on being summoned, if they appear before the
court, bail should not be refused or cancelled only because
cognizance has been taken under non-bailable sections."
In such circumstance, it has been prayed that the petitioners be directed
to be released on bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
In such, circumstance and in view of the judgment referred above as
well as the order passed in A.B.A. No. 3041 of 2012, this anticipatory bail
application is not maintainable.
However, taking a cue from the judgment referred above, the
petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for
regular bail within a period of four weeks from today and if they do so
they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each, to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Garhwa in connection with
Dhurki P.S. Case No. 60 of 2022.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.K/
