Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 851 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2005-12-12

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
Order Heard the parties. 2. The O.P. No. 2 Bilash Gupta @ Ram Bilas Gupta being one of the accused approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 699/2004 in connection with Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 87 of 2001 (G.R. Case No. 200/2001) registered for the offence under sections 364, 302, 342, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court be order dated 4.8.2004 after considering the materials collected during investigation, directed the petitioner to be released on bail on his surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahebganj, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, after about one month the present application was filed by the informant of the said case namely, Anil Kumar Mishra for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused O.P. No.2 Bilas Gupta @ Ram Bilas Gupta on the ground mentioned in the petition. This court issued notice to the accused O.P. No.2 to show cause as to why the anticipatory bail granted to him be not cancelled on the grounds, which were mentioned in the petition, filed by the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, by order dated 8.12.2004 a report from the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj was called for in connection with the allegations made by the informant/ petitioner, against the accused O.P. No.2 Bilas Gupta @ Ram Bilas Gupta that he alongwith Bhanu Pratap Singh threatened the petitioner and his witnesses with dire consequences if he does not compromise the case. The report of the Superintendent of Police was received and on the basis of the said report this Court after hearing both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the petitioner and his relative were being threatened by the accused persons, and, therefore, the O.P. NO.2 found to have misused the privilege of bail granted to him and, accordingly, by order dated 4.2.2005 the anticipatory bail granted to him was cancelled and he was directed to surrender in the court below. 4. Against the said order of this Court dated 4.2.2005 the accused O.P. No. 2 Silas Gupta @ Ram Silas Gupta filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1 070/2005 before the Supreme Court, which was ultimately registered as Criminal Appeal No. 621/2005 and the Apex Court by order dated 25.4.2005 passed the following orders:- "Leave Granted. 4. Against the said order of this Court dated 4.2.2005 the accused O.P. No. 2 Silas Gupta @ Ram Silas Gupta filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1 070/2005 before the Supreme Court, which was ultimately registered as Criminal Appeal No. 621/2005 and the Apex Court by order dated 25.4.2005 passed the following orders:- "Leave Granted. The anticipatory bail granted to the appellant herein was cancelled by the High Court by the impugned order on the ground that the appellant has been threatening the informant and other witnesses and, therefore, the privilege of bail has been misused. This observation of the High Court is based on the report of the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj (filed as Annexure P-9 to the special leave petition) which in turn refers to the inquiry report of the Police Officer, Incharge of Mirzapur Police Station. We have gone through the reports. As both the reports are not clear enough to indicate that the threats were received against the witnesses, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which the High Court should re-examine the matter in the light of the reports on record and any further report that may be called for by the High Court. The order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside without expressing any view on the merits of the case. The matter is remitted to the High Court to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Appeal is disposed of accordingly." 5. Accordingly, after remand, the matter was placed before me for fresh consideration in view of the observation and direction of the Supreme Court. 6. Thereafter, by order dated 12.8.2005 a fresh report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj regarding the allegations made by the informant Anil Kumar Mishra that he and witness were being threatened by the accused persons. The Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj was directed to get the matter enquired thoroughly by an officer not below the rank of a Dy. S.P. 7. Pursuant to the above order a report has been sent by the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, alongwith the copy of the enquiry report of the Dy. S.P., Sahebganj, who had enquired into the allegations made by the informant. 8. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, is mainly in two paragraphs, which are quoted hereinbelow:- "1. S.P. 7. Pursuant to the above order a report has been sent by the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, alongwith the copy of the enquiry report of the Dy. S.P., Sahebganj, who had enquired into the allegations made by the informant. 8. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, is mainly in two paragraphs, which are quoted hereinbelow:- "1. The complainant of the above noted case Shri Anil Kumar Mishra and other four witnesses of the case namely Dhananjay Mishra, Ram Narain Mishra, Jeet Narain Dubey and Mamaljeet Mahto accepted before the officer enquiring into it that accused of the case Bilas Gupta @ Ram Bilas Gupta and Bhanu Pratap Singh have threatened them and have chidden them to withdraw the case or to be hostile. Except above none of the witnesses or their relatives have received any sort of threatening by the accused of the case. 2. It is further stated that a Gonstable alongwith a Chowkidar have been deputed at the residence of the complainant of the case Shri Anil Kumar Mishra and Officer Incharge of the Police State has been instructed to give all protections to the witnesses till the trial of the case." 9. From the enquiry report of the Dy. S.P. it appears that apart from the fact that the informant was being threatened by the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh and Bilas Gupta @ Ram Bilas Gupta, the witness of the said case namely, Ram Narain Mishra also stated in course of enquiry that he was being threatened for compromising the case by the aforesaid two accused persons. It further appears that the other witness namely, Mamaljeet Mahto, who was aged about 85 years also stated that the named accused persons were pressurizing him not to appear as a witness in the said case. 10. Mr. Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused persons submitted that the statement of the witnesses, recorded by the Inquiry Officer, are absolutely vague and no detail regarding the threatening has been stated by them and, therefore, unless and until overwhelming evidence are found against the accused, the anticipatory bail granted to him cannot be cancelled. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully considering the report of the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj as well as of the Dy. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully considering the report of the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj as well as of the Dy. S.P., Sahebganj, in my view; from the facts emerging in the report there is no doubt in my mind that the accused persons including the accused Silas Gupta @ Ram Silas Gupta are threatening the informant as well as the witnesses also and, therefore, it appears that the accused Silas Gupta @ Ram Silas Gupta is misusing the privilege of bail and is trying to tamper with the evidence. 12. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order dated 4.8.2004 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in A.SA No. 699/2004 is hereby recalled and the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is hereby cancelled. The accused Silas Gupta @ Ram Silas Gupta is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of 15 days. If he does not surrender within the aforesaid period, all coercive steps shall be taken against him by the• court below for his arrest.