Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1646 (JHR)

Niyel Tirkey @ Neil Tirkey v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-09-17

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2019
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Apprehending his arrest in connection with Palkot P.S. Case No.90 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1180 of 2017 instituted under Sections 147,148,149,302,307,341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P appearing for the State. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner files the supplementary affidavit. Let the same be kept in the record. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Ex-M.L.A. instigated and provoked the mob to attack the family members of the informant as a result of which after forming the unlawful assembly, the villagers upon the instigation and provoked by the petitioner armed with lathi and danda assaulted the informant''s mother namely Lakhpati Devi, informant''s father namely Tahlu Ram and informant''s sister namely Runi Kumari and all the three died on the spot by such assault. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the case in the re-statement of the informant in para-13 of the case-diary though he is not named in the F.I.R. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the sisters of the informant namely Rajni Kumari and Phulmani Kumari in their statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have not stated that the petitioner instigated or provoked the mob to kill their father, mother and sister. It is then submitted that apart from this case, the petitioner is also involved in Palkot P.S. Case No.84 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147,149,323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code but in that case, the petitioner has been given the privileges of anticipatory bail. It is then submitted that the petitioner has not been named in Palkot P.S. Case No.91 of 2017 which took place on the same day as the occurrence of this case and the same was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/307/353/332/333/427 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence nor he instigated the mob. It is also submitted that the petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence nor he instigated the mob. It is next submitted that as the petitioner complained against the custodial death of one Nandlal Kerketta who was arrested by the police in connection with Palkot P.S. Case No.82 of 2017 hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the date of instigation and provocation allegedly given by the petitioner was much before the date of occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the heinous nature of occurrence of broad day light murder of three poor innocent villagers belonging to one family by the assault of a mob being instigated and provoked by the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and the petitioner being an Ex-M.L.A and an influential person in the society is likely to tamper with the evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in murder of three innocent poor villagers in broad day light by instigating and provoking the co-accused persons and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit '' where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.