PRAMESHWAR MAHTO ALIAS PARMESHWAR MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./1480/2025 · 2025-03-05
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3267 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3267 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1480 of 2025
------
1. Prameshwar Mahto @ Parmeshwar Mahto, aged about 63 years, s/o late Kishan Mahto
2. Kaushalya Devi, aged about 58 years, w/o Prameshwar Mahto, both are r/o Village-Tangra Tola, P.O.- Chhattarmandu, P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
… Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sajid Yunus, Advocate
: Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.02 Dated- 05.03.2025
Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.233 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 74/ 62/ 296/ 351(2)/ 352/ 356(2)/ 3(5)/ 61/ 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons got made obscene video of the informant and the said video was sent by the co-accused-Sanu Kumar to Ranju Devi and Ranju Devi made the said video viral; on the instruction of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and there is no allegation against the petitioners of either making the obscene video or making the same viral. It is next submitted that admittedly there is land dispute and enmity between the parties. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner
during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- each and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees 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.233 of 2024 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-