Jharkhand High Court
Guddu Rana @ Guddu Kumar Rana vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.10293 of 2022
------
Guddu Rana @ Guddu Kumar Rana
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 02.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case
No. 75 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 450 of 2022 (S.T. No.77 of
2022) instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506/34
of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant
of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per FIR, allegation is that on 28.06.2021 at about 7:00 am,
while the informant along with his family members was doing work in
his hotel. In the meantime, petitioner along with others came to the
informant and started assaulting the informant and his family members
for not removing the bricks from the land of petitioner, due to which
the informant sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the petitioner
pointed out pistol on the temple of informant and threated to leave the
land otherwise, he will be killed. When the informant's wife rushed to
save him, the petitioner also assaulted his wife and snatched Rs.8,000/-
from the hotel of the informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the
petitioner was on police bail and after completion of the investigation,
the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Sections 341,
323, 506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code but the cognizance has been taken
under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Due
to addition of Section 307 of IPC, the petitioner reasonably apprehends
his arrested.
Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was already on police
bail prior to taking of cognizance under section 307 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
petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for
regular bail within a period of four weeks from today and if he does so
he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each,
to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in
connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 75 of 2021 corresponding to
G.R. No. 450 of 2022 (S.T. No.77 of 2022).
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
