Jharkhand High Court
Gulu Kisku @ Gillu Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.10971 of 2022
------
1. Gulu Kisku @ Gillu Kisku
2. Surin Marandi
3. Manu Hembrom
4. Rubi Hansda
5. Mishil Marandi
6. Jitram Hembrom .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Kant Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.04 Dated- 25.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Maheshpur P.S.
Case No. 172 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 871 of 2016 instituted
under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the
petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory
bail.
As per FIR, allegation is that on 28.09.2016 while the informant
was engaged in distributing rice, meanwhile, petitioners along with 20-
25 unknown miscreants armed with sticks, lathis reached there and
looted 75 qtls of rice and Rs.1,200/- cash from the go-down of
informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather
they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. It
is further submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 79 days in
lodging the FIR without offering any reasonable reasons. Petitioners
have complied with the notice received under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C.
from the concerned police station. 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, 323, 448, 504 and
379 of the Indian Penal Code and the cognizance has been taken against
them under the aforesaid sections.
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 A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and
submitted that there are direct and specific allegations of assaulting the
informant and his family members causing grievous injuries to them.
Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were already on police
bail prior to taking of cognizance under Sections 147, 323, 448, 504 and
379 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 SDJM, Pakur in connection with
Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 172 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 871 of
2016.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
