Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 282 (JHR)

Sachidanand Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-20

R.BANUMATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. Petitioner is represented by learned counsel, Mr. Deepak Kumar and the opposite party-State is represented by Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 4, A.P.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 276 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1373 of 2013 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) – I, Koderma. "It is the case of the prosecution that on 6.9.2013 from the college of informant, bundle of answer-paper was being sent by auto-rickshaw to J.J. College, Jhumri Telaiya and when auto-rickshaw reached near the house of the present petitioner, it is alleged that the petitioner's sons namely Pappu Kumar and Deepak Kumar forcibly stopped auto-rickshaw and assaulted college staff. It is further alleged that the sons of the petitioner tried to carry down answer-paper and on being raised hulla, college staff reached there and thereafter, the accused persons fled away. It is further case of the prosecution that on 7.9.2013, when the informant was attending to conduct examination in the college, he received information that some unknown persons started erecting wall on the play ground of college and subsequently informant reached there whereafter, the petitioner along with his sons namely Pappu Kumar, Deepak Kumar and one Vinod Singh attacked upon him and started assaulting. It is alleged that sons of the petitioner and Binod Singh caught hold of the informant and assaulted him. It is further case of the petitioner that the named accused are said to have taken away Rs. 25000/- and also alleged to have snatched a gold chain from the informant. On the complaint lodged by the informant, an F.I.R. was registered being Telaiya P.S. Case No. 276 of 2013 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is already a civil dispute between the present petitioner and the informant for which petitioner has already filed a Title (Damage) Suit No. 61 of 2012 in respect of his land of Khata Nos. 6, 7 and 16 measuring 25 decimals for declaration of title, confirmation and possession as well as injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is already a civil dispute between the present petitioner and the informant for which petitioner has already filed a Title (Damage) Suit No. 61 of 2012 in respect of his land of Khata Nos. 6, 7 and 16 measuring 25 decimals for declaration of title, confirmation and possession as well as injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the said Title Suit, the informant Jai Prakash Yadav is the first defendant and he appeared in the said Title Suit and filed written statement. The present case has been filed to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. It is further submitted that prior to the present case, the petitioner had filed a complaint Case No. 325 of 2012 against the informant and other employees of the college. It was submitted that one Shiv Narayan Yadav has also filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 854 of 2012 against the Principal of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav Inter College and another. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he may be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that investigation is under progress and if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the further progress of the investigation. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it appears that even though in the F.I.R. it is alleged that on 6.9.2013, the sons of the petitioner namely Pappu Kumar and Deepak Kumar had forcibly stopped the auto-rickshaw and alleged to carry down the answer papers from the auto-rickshaw and no complaint was lodged on 6.9.2013. The complaint was lodged on 07.9.2013 on the alleged occurrence on 7.9.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the photo copy of the Title (Damage) Suit No. 61 of 2012 which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Koderma long prior to the lodging of instant case on 7.9.2013. The complaint was lodged on 07.9.2013 on the alleged occurrence on 7.9.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the photo copy of the Title (Damage) Suit No. 61 of 2012 which was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Koderma long prior to the lodging of instant case on 7.9.2013. On perusal of the plaint of the said Title Suit, it is apparent that the present informant namely Jai Prakash Yadav, Principal of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, the Secretary of the said College and the Professors of the said College are also the defendants in the said Title Suit. It is also apparent that the dispute between the parties regarding the boundary appears to be more in the nature of civil dispute. In such view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that present case has been lodged falsely against the petitioner and others cannot be brushed away as baseless. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on such surrender he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) – I, Koderma in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 276 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1373 of 2013 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.