Damodar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Damodar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 2117 of 2024
                           ------

1. Damodar Pandey, aged about 70 years, Son of Late
Nandlal Pandey,

2. Suresh Pandey, aged about 65 years,

3. Basant Pandey, aged about 63 years,

4. Mahesh Pandey, aged about 51 years, No. 2 to 4 all sons of
Chhatradhari Pandey,

5. Sanjay Pandey @ Sanjay Kr. Pandey, aged about 47 years,
Son of Damodar Pandey,
All are Resident of Village -Choubey, P.O. & P.S. –
Chalkusa, District -Hazaribagh.

                                           ...          Petitioners
                                   Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ramkishore Pandey, Son of Late Jagdish Pandey, Resident
of Village -Choubey, P.O. & P.S. -Chalkusa, Dist. –

          Hazaribag.                       ...       Opposite Parties
                                    ------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

——

       For the Petitioners       : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha (2), Advocate
       For the State             : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P.
       For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey (2), Advocate
                                       ------
       Order No.08 Dated- 20.01.2025

            Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Chalkusa P.S. Case No.06 of 2021 registered under sections 147/148/
149/323/341/420/467/468/471/386/387/506/120B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

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 hatched a conspiracy to grab
the property of the informant by mentioning Khata Number and Area
of the land in respect of which sale deed was executed by them
different from the Khata Number and Area of which the informant is
the owner and on the basis of the said document, they are threatening
the informant from going over his land. It is further submitted that the
allegations against the petitioners are all false and no offence for which
the F.I.R. has been lodged is made out against the petitioners. It is then
submitted that there is admitted land dispute between the parties and
there is a delay of six years in filing the complaint case which upon
being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. of this
case has been registered. It is next submitted that both the parties are
agnates and due to land dispute, this false case has been foisted only to
harass the petitioners. 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. and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 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 above
named 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 Judicial Magistrate -1st Class,
Hazaribagh, in connection with Chalkusa P.S. Case No.06 of 2021 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 thier mobile number and a copy of
their Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that they
will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case
with further condition that 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 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-