Jharkhand High Court
Ful Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 8282 of 2022
1. Ful Kumar Mahto
2. Dhananjay Kumar Mahto @ Dhananjay Mahto ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Shankar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, A.P.P.
.....
Order No.05/ Dated:24.02.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case
No. 784 of 2015, corresponding to G.R No.1812 of 2015 instituted under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379 & 34 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 accused petitioner, Ful Kumar Mahto
abused and assaulted the mother of informant with stick, causing bleeding
head injury to her and when the informant came to save her, he was also
assaulted by both petitioners with stick causing injuries to him.
Meanwhile, one Bhagyamani Devi snatched golden chain of the
informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are
innocent and has committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely
implicated in this case. It is submitted that police after investigation has
submitted charge sheet for offence under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506,
307, 324, 325 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that there is
no repeated blows of assault on the informant as per allegation, so offence
under Section 307 is not made out against the petitioners, hence, the
petitioners reasonably apprehend of being arrested and taken into custody.
It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the
investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which
may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
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 aforesaid, circumstances and in view of the judgment of this Court
referred above, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar
in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 784 of 2015,
corresponding to G.R No.1812 of 2015.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.K/
