Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16751 (JHR)

BATESHWAR MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./4846/2023 · 2025-01-20

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3484 of 2023 ------ Kanhaiya Rabidas @ Kanhaiya Ravidas, aged about 33 years Son of Om Prakash Ravidas Resident of Masjid Mohalla, Behind Tata Indicom Mobile Tower, P.O.-Argada, P.S.-Sirka, District-Ramgarh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ritesh Kumar, S/o Raju, at R/o-Village-Balmandli, Near Hanuman Mandir, Argadda, P.O.+P.S.+District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand. .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.4846 of 2023 ------ Bateshwar Mahto, aged about 42 years, son of Mutukdhari Mahto, resident of H.No.134, Sirka Teliya Tand, Sirka, P.O. & P.S.-Argada, District-Ramgarh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ritesh Kumar, S/o Raju, Resident of Balmandli, Near Hanuman Mandir, Argada, P.O. & P.S.- Argada, District-Ramgarh. .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.4794 of 2023 ------ Kumar Vishal @ Golu Malakar, aged about 27 years, son of Ranjeet Malakar, resident of H.No.175, Teliya Tand, Near Masjid Road, Sirka, P.O. & P.S.-Argada, District-Ramgarh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ritesh Kumar, S/o Raju, Resident of Balmani, Near Hanuman Mandir, Argodda, P.O. & P.S.- Argodda, District-Ramgarh. .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. P.S. Bajaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.10 Dated- 20/01/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.213 of 2022 instituted under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has cheated the poor, illiterate, unemployed and helpless persons and got sanctioned loans in their names and took away motorcycles by using the documents executed by the petitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonestly inducing delivery of any property or altering any valuable security. It is also submitted that the petitioners undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the alleged victims in any manner during the pendency of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within eight weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.20,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.213 of 2022 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile numbers and photocopy of the Aadhar Cards with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and they will not annoy or disturb the alleged victims in any manner during the pendency of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/