Jharkhand High Court
Rampati Oraon @ Gandira Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 11350 of 2022
1. Rampati Oraon @ Gandira Oraon
2. Laldhar Sahu ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
.....
Order No.02/ Dated:24.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 234 of
2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 714 of 2019 instituted under Sections 341,
323, 324, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per F.I.R., there is an allegation of assaulting the informant's husband
and son while they were returning after cultivation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 F.I.R. was lodged
including offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but after
completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section
341/323/324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned
Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code also. It is submitted that petitioners were on police bail during
investigation of the case. It is submitted that since the offence under Section
326 of the Indian Penal Code is severely punishable, 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, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.
234 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 714 of 2019.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.K/
