Jharkhand High Court
Anil Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 1 August, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
BA No. 2863 of 2023
Anil Ganjhu ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate
------
Order No. 06/Dated: 1st August, 2024
When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the parties are
present.
The facts of the case as claimed by the petitioner is that on 25.02.2016
brother of the informant namely Hemant Kumar Ganjhu along with his friend came to the
house from Delhi and on 26.02.2016 two sisters of the informant also came to the house. It
is further alleged that on 27.02.2016 in the morning Chaman Ganjhu came to her house
and told to open the door. The informant due to fear did not open the door but the person
assembled outside her house threatened to break the door and hence informant opened the
door. Thereafter about seven accused persons in uniform entered into her house. Accused
persons took the brother of the informant forcibly towards the forest with intention to kill
him. It is further alleged that those persons were identified by the sister of the informant
namely Chanchal Kumari as Anil Ganjhu, Dharmendra Mahto, Manmohan, Yugal, Nitesh
and Kabir. One of the accused was not identified because he covered his face. Apart from
this the petitioner is alleged to be a member of TPC, an extremist organization, who has
been identified by the sister of the informant, namely, Chanchal Kumari. Hence an FIR
was registered against the accused persons for the offence under sections 364/34 IPC and
subsequently sections 302/201 of the IPC and section 17 of CLA Act were added.
The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other
named miscreants had entered into the house of the informant and forcibly took the
brother of the informant towards the forest with intention to kill him and the dead body of
the deceased was recovered from the said forest after twenty two days.
On 26th July, 2024 the following order was passed by this Court:
"Order No. 04/Dated: 26th July, 2024
When the matter is called out, the learned counsels for the
parties are present.
In pursuance of order dated 9th July, 2024 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2843 of 2024, arising out of SLP
(CRL) No. 7546 of 2024, this bail application has been listed today.
On perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been pleased to set-aside the order dated 26.4.2023
passed by this Court releasing the accused on bail and remitted the
matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with
law, more particularly, keeping in mind the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case, therefore, this matter has
been taken up today.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
meanwhile six co-accused persons have been acquitted in this case who
are Kabir Ji in ST No. 17 of 2021, Ram Kumar Ganjhu in ST No. 314 of
2022, Jitendra Ganjhu, Deepak Ganjhu and Karampal Ganjhu in ST
No. 369 of 2018 and Kohram Ji in ST No. 63 of 2019. He has further
submitted that case of this petitioner is similar to one of the co-accused,
namely, Kabir Ji who has been acquitted in ST No. 17 of 2021, therefore,
he seeks parity.
Office is directed to call for case diary and stage of trial from
the learned Court below.
The learned counsel for the State is directed to file counter-
affidavit.
The learned counsel for the State is further directed to file an
affidavit regarding status of the petitioner as to whether subsequent to
the order dated 9th July, 2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 2843 of 2024, the petitioner is taken into custody
or not.
List this case on 31st July, 2024.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below
through FAX."
On 31.7.2024 stage of the trial has been received which has been
communicated by the learned jurisdictional Court vide letter no. 265 dated 27th July, 2024,
however, the learned counsel for the State submits that she will be filing information
regarding whether the petitioner has surrendered in the learned Court below and is in
custody or not and she was allowed to do so.
Today, when the matter was taken up the learned counsel for the State has
filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that as per Annexure-A which is a
communication dated 30.7.2024 to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner is
absconding.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written notes of
submissions including bail orders and judgments of other co-accused persons.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that most humbly and with
all due respect to the order dated 9.7.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Cr. Appeal No. 2843 of 2024, as far as he is aware and also he has communicated with the
pairvikar of the petitioner, the petitioner was not even aware that a case against him was
subsisting in the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Annexure-1 to the
written notes of submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that FIR has
been lodged against six named accused persons including this petitioner and Dharmendra
Mahto @ Dharmendra Jee @ Munnilal Mahta, Manmohan, Jugal, Nitesh Kumar Yadav @
Nitesh, Kishroe Ganjhu @ Kabir Ji @ Kabir Ganjhu @ Kabir and 30-35 unknown
persons. The learned counsel has further stated that out of six named-accused persons, co-
accused Nitesh Kumar Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 25.11.2017 passed in
BA No. 7449 of 2017, co-accused Munnilal Mahto has been granted bail vide order dated
02.08.2021 passed in BA No. 6730 of 2021 and co-accused Kishroe Ganjhu @ Kabir Ji @
Kabir Ganjhu @ Kabir has been acquitted by the learned Court below in S.T. No. 17 of
2021 vide judgment dated 15.6.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
pointed out Annexure-2 and submitted that out of 28 charge-sheeted accused persons,
eight co-accused persons have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this
Court.The learned counsel has further pointed out Annexure-4 and stated that co-accused
Kishore Ganjhu @ Kabir Ji @ Kabir Ganjhu has got thirteen criminal antecedents out of
which in eleven cases he is on bail and he has been acquitted in two cases. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further pointed out Annexure-5 and submitted that the petitioner
has got only one criminal antecedent in connection with Katkamdag PS Case No. 75 of
2016 in which he has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 26.4.2023 passed in
BA No. 2875 of 2023, therefore, the petitioner may also be released on bail in this case.
The learned counsel has further reiterated the arguments which he has made
on earlier occasion and also submitted that case of the petitioner is totally similar if not
better to the case of co-accused Kishroe Ganjhu @ Kabir Ji @ Kabir Ganjhu @ Kabir who
has got thirteen criminal antecedents out of which in eleven cases he is on bail and also in
this case he has been acquitted by the learned Court below in S.T. No. 17 of 2021 vide
judgment dated 15.6.2024. He has further stated that the petitioner has got only one
criminal antecedent, therefore, he is on better footing to the case of Kishroe Ganjhu @
Kabir Ji @ Kabir Ganjhu @ Kabir.
The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that in paragraph no.2 of the case diary, the informant has supported the case of
prosecution and in paragraph nos. 4,5 and 6 of the case diary the witnesses have also
supported the case of prosecution. Further in supplementary case diary it is indicated that
there was enmity between the petitioner and the deceased. On the date of occurrence the
petitioner along with other co-accused persons came to the house of the petitioner in
police uniform and kidnapped the brother of the informant with intention to kill him and
he was taken to the forest from where his dead body was recovered. The petitioner was
identified by the sister of the informant Chanchal Kumari as member of TPC who used to
come to their village. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was earlier
absconding for several years. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve bail.
On 26th July, 2024 stage of trial was called for from the learned court below
which has been received vide letter no. 265 dated 27 th July,2024 relevant portion of which
is as under:
" .......Thereafter the record was fixed for commitment of the record. On
24.08.2023 the bail of the accused Anil Ganjhu was cancelled as the
accused did not adhere to the condition of bail and remain present only
through representation even after specific direction to be physically
present on each and every date before the court. Hence, OC was
directed to issue non-bailable warrant against him. Later on 27.7.2024
NBW is issued against him and the record is fixed for his appearance.
And the next date given for the appearance is on 16.08.24."
In view of above, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Hazaribag has cancelled the bail-bond of the petitioner vide order dated 24.8.2023 and
non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him on 27.7.2024. A new development
has taken place in this case in which the bail-bond of the petitioner was cancelled for
violation of one of the conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 26.4.2023 passed
in BA no. 2863 of 2023.
In view of above development, couple of orders which have been passed
and also that the petitioner has violated conditions of the order dated 26.4.2023 passed by
this Court in BA no. 2863 of 2023 and that the concerned jurisdictional court had then
cancelled his bail-bonds and now that NBW has been issued against him, I am not
inclined to issue any direction for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with
Katkamsandi PS Case No. 29 of 2016, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Hazaribag, hence, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
The learned Court below is directed to take all necessary steps in
accordance with law for procuring arrest of the petitioner, however, this order should not
cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
KNR (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
