BADRI YADAV ALIAS BADRI MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2024-12-03. BADRI YADAV ALIAS BADRI MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4153 of 2024 1. Badri Yadav @ Badri Mahto, S/o Gugul Mahto 2. Nunulal Yadav @ Nunulal Mahto, S/o Gugul Mahto 3. Sunil Yadav, S/o Badri Yadav 4. Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav, S/o Badri Yadav 5. Ranju Kumari, W/o Suresh Kumar Yadav 6. Gudiya Kumari, W/o Rajesh Yadav 7. Bhadri Devi, W/o Badri Yadav 8. Kunwar Singh @ Kumar Singh, S/o Chandrashekhar Singh All are R/o Village-Bhadwa Khurd, PO-Budhudih, PS-Ahilyapur, District-Giridih ... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, A. P. P. ----- 09/03. 12. 2024 The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F. I. R. Though there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 3 – Sunil Yadav that he assaulted the informant’s husband Ravi Hazam on his head by means of axe, however, the said injury has been found simple in nature. Though the injury sustained by Jamuna Singh has been found grievous in nature, however, there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that they assaulted him by means of axe due to which he sustained injury on his head and finger of left hand of Basant Singh also got fractured. Nonetheless, in absence of any specific allegation against the said petitioners, inflicting of the said injuries cannot be attributed to any of them. So far as rest of the petitioners i. e. , the petitioner nos. 5, 6 and 8 are concerned, there is no specific allegation against them.
The petitioners, however, undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned A. P. P opposes the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest/surrender within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in connection with Ahilyapur P. S. Case No. 09/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Rajesh Shankar, J. ) Manish A. B. A. No. 4153 of 2024
Source: High Court of Jharkhand. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.