Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 196 (JHR)

Arun Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-27

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
ORDER Anant Bijay Singh, J. – Both these anticipatory bail applications are heard together as both of them arises out of same FIR in Kotwali Sadar P.S. Case No. 362 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 6422 of 2016 were lodged on the basis of one written report of one Shobhit Ranjan alleging therein that on 10-11-2016, the informant along with his four friends namely Niraj alias Nilesh, Pandijee, Sukhra Bhaiya, Mukesh Pandey and driver Bablu went to Rajrappa and after '' Pooja Path'' ? came to Ranchi and thereafter they went to Raj Residency (hotel) to participate in the Ring Ceremony of their friend Mithlesh Yadav. It is submitted that in the said hotel, D. J. Programme and wet party was going on and there were 25 to 26 persons. It is alleged that during the dance party, scuffle took place between Mukesh Pandey and Dr. Mukesh (the petitioner in A.B.A No. 4583/2016). On seeing this, Dr. Sachin, Dr. Arun (the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4840/2016), Baban Singh, Pappu and Robert started assaulting the friends of the informant. Thereafter, the informant, Dr. Mukesh, Sumit and Manish tried to pacify the matter with the help of other persons and the drunken Mukesh Pandey was taken to a room nearby, where he was sleeping unconscious and thereafter on the next morning at 10.30 hours, they took Mukesh Pandey, to City Hospital, where he was found dead. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A No. 4853 of 2016 while pressing the anticipatory bail application has submitted that when the scuffle took place other persons who were in the party, assaulted the petitioner firstly and the instant occurrence took place. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A. No.4840 of 2016 has submitted that no case under Section 302, IPC, is made out, as Mukesh Pandey since deceased has assaulted Dr. Mukesh firstly thereafter it is alleged that this petitioner and other persons interfered and tried to pacify the matter and there was no intention to cause grievious injury to the informant. 4. Learned A.P.P., opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and produced the case diary and submitted that witnesses in paras 14 and 15 have supported the case of the prosecution and stated that there was scuffle between Mukesh Pandey (since deceased) and Dr. Mukesh and he was assaulted by some persons. 4. Learned A.P.P., opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and produced the case diary and submitted that witnesses in paras 14 and 15 have supported the case of the prosecution and stated that there was scuffle between Mukesh Pandey (since deceased) and Dr. Mukesh and he was assaulted by some persons. He has also referred to para 71 of the case diary, wherein Sachinda Nand Pandey, has stated that he is acquainted with the deceased Mukesh Pandey and further stated that Mukesh Pandey came in Dusherra and expressed his danger from these persons. 5. Learned counsel for the informant also opposed the prayer of the anticipatory bail and submitted hat the petitioners have assaulted and caused injury to Mukesh Pandey, resulting in death on next day. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that in para 51 of the case diary, the witness namely Arti Kumari, who is one of the dancer in D. J. Programme, has stated that while the dance was going on, altercation took place in between Mukesh Pandey (since deceased) and Dr. Mukesh Kumar and exchange of slap blow took place between them and thereafter Dr. Sachin, Dr. Arun, Baban Singh, Pappu and Robert stated that how the persons dared to slap and assault Dr. Mukesh Kumar as Dr. Mukesh tried to pacify the matter. In para 52 of the case diary Riya Kumari has stated the similar facts whatever Arti Kumari, has stated Mr. Rajiv Lochan, advocated in para-51 of the case diary. 7. After going through the case diary and the statement of Arti Kumari and Riya Kumari in paras 51 and 52, it appears that while the dance was going on, Mukesh Pandey (since deceased) lifted the dancer Isha in his lap wherein she resisted these petitioners due to provocation interfered and some scuffle took place and the incident has taken place. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners above named are directed to surrender in the Court below, within four weeks, from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners above named are directed to surrender in the Court below, within four weeks, from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Kotwali Sadar P.S. Case No. 362 of 2016, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 6422 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. 9. Further learned counsel for the petitioners are directed to supply the cell number of two petitioners to the learned counsel appearing for the State, within one week, thereafter, learned APP will transmit the same to I.O. and the I.O. of these cases after giving 72 hours notice to the petitioners, may fix date and time, for recording of statement of both the petitioners and on that date, the petitioners shall appear before the I.O. and I.O. can record their statement, if the petitioners fail to appear before the I.O., it is open to the I.O. to bring this fact to the notice of the learned APP and learned APP shall file application for cancellation of bail of these petitioners before this court. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court and also a copy of this order be handed over to the learned APP for its transmission to the I.O.