Jharkhand High Court
Mahadev Kapri vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 958 of 2023
------
Mahadev Kapri, aged about 49 years, son of late Kurchan
Kapri, resident of Village-Kakaniyan, P.O., P.S.-Saraiyahat,
Dist.-Dumka ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kunti Devi, w/o Bishwanath Singh
3. Bishwanath Singh @ Biswanath, s/o late Peru Singh,
all resident of Village-Gangmarni, P.O., P.S.-Saraiyahat,
Dist.-Dumka ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.4, Advocate
------
Order No.09 Dated- 25.10.2024
Heard the parties.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section
439 (2) Cr.P.C by the petitioner with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to
the opposite party nos.2 and 3 vide order dated 21.10.2019 passed by this
Court in A.B.A. No. 7330 of 2019 in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case
No. 72 of 2019 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Dumka.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
opposite party nos.2 and 3 were granted bail with the condition that they
will not go over the land of Gantzer's Settlement Khata No. 55, Mauja-
Kaknia in the District of Dumka. It is next submitted that the opposite
party nos.2 and 3 started constructing boundary wall over the disputed
land for which the petitioner has informed to the Superintendent of Police,
Dumka. Since the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have violated the terms and
condition of the bail hence, the bail granted to them be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 drawing
attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed in this case submits
that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have not violated the terms and
condition of the bail as is evident from the judgment of Commissioner
dated 08.06.2022 that as per the report of the Circle Officer, Saraiyahat, the
opposite party no.2 got 'Indira Awas' pucca well and surrounded the land
by brick wall and planted many trees. So the question of constructing wall
after the opposite party nos.2 and 3 being released on bail does not arise.
Hence, it submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, this Court finds that allegation of
violation of bail is vague. No time and date of the opposite party nos.2 and
3 entering upon the said land bearing Gantzer's settlement Khata No. 55,
Mauja-Kaknia in the District of Dumka has been mentioned anywhere in
this criminal miscellaneous petition nor it has been mentioned as to
whether the opposite party nos.2 and 3 themselves constructed the wall or
someone else on their behalf have constructed the wall and if anybody else
have done the same, the name of the persons have also not been
mentioned.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the claim of the petitioner that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have
violated the terms and condition of the bail granted to them vide order
dated 21.10.2019 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 7330 of 2019 in
connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 72 of 2019 does not inspire
confidence.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no
justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 and
3.
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu-Gunjan/
