1

Court of Prabhat Kumar Sharma, A.J.C. XVIII, Ranchi

A.B.P. 2431/2023
Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 187/2022

JHRN010107562023

1. Santosh Kumar, aged about 44 years

S/o Laxmi Bhagat, R/o Morang Road, Patel Colony, Hatia, Ranchi.
2. Kanhaiya Kumar, aged about 21 years
S/o Santosh Kumar,
3. Rohan Kumar, aged about 17 years
S/o Santosh Kumar,
4. Karan Kumar, aged about 21 years
S/o Santosh Kumar,
5. Fula Devi, aged about 40 years
W/o Santosh Kumar,
Sl No. 2 to 5 are R/o Patel Colony,
CTO Road, Dhurwa, Ranchi……………………………………. .Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand……....…...………….………….……………………O.P.

Ld. Counsel for petitioners - Sri Mukesh Kumar, Adv.

Ld. Counsel for the State - Sri Ved Prakash, Addl.P.P.

20.09.2023 – Anticipatory Bail Petition filed on behalf of above named petitioners,

who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 187/2022,
registered u/s 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 34 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Ld. C.J.M.,
Ranchi is put up for hearing along with copy of case diary submitted by Ld. Addl. P.P.
today.
Heard to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as
 2
Court of Prabhat Kumar Sharma, A.J.C. XVIII, Ranchi

A.B.P. 2431/2023
Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 187/2022

well as Ld. Addl. P.P.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence whatsoever as alleged in the
FIR and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners and informant are
resident of same locality and merely due to minor scuffle between the kids this false
case has been lodged and the entire case of prosecution is very vague and omnibus in
nature and there is no any overt act against any of the petitioner. It is further submitted
that none of the petitioner ever assaulted the informant or his family members nor they
stole the earrings of one Soni Devi and only with the malafide intention this case is
merely a counter blast to save their own skin. It is further submitted that no injury
report has been available on the record and in absence of injury report it is impossible
to believe that the informant was being assaulted by the petitioners. The petitioners
never visited the place of informant rather the informant came to the house of the
petitioners and assaulted them. It is further submitted that in the FIR nowhere it is
stated that out of all the petitioners who snatched earring of Soni Devi and only to
harass the petitioners, this false allegations has been leveled against them. The
petitioners have no criminal antecedents. On the above said grounds, learned counsel
prays to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl.P.P. opposed the prayer of petitioners and submitted
that the accused persons have snatched earrings of the one victim and also assaulted the
informant party brutally hence their petition may be rejected.
In view of the above submissions of both sides as well as on going
through the case record, it appears that this case has been instituted on the basis of
written report of informant Sachitanand Sinha, wherein it is alleged that when Suraj
Kumar had gone to talk about the settlement of children’s fight, in the meanwhile
Santosh, Kanhaiya Kumar, Rohit Kumar, Karan Kumar, Rohit Kumar and Fula Devi
started attacking with rod and stones and they also attacked to Soni Devi and snatched
her earring. The informant was also assaulted, due to which he sustained head injury
and one Jiwan Kumar had sustained injury on his lips. Hence this case.
 3
Court of Prabhat Kumar Sharma, A.J.C. XVIII, Ranchi

A.B.P. 2431/2023
Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 187/2022

Having heard the parties and going through the case record, it transpires
that investigation in the matter is still pending. It is admitted by the parties that the
altercation took place due to dispute of children of both the side. The statements of the
witnesses namely Smita Devi and Aryan Kumar mentioned in Para- 18 & 19 of the case
diary, there is no whisper about occurrence of any snatching. Further, there is no injury
report on the record. Even the witnesses examined by the I.O. have not disclosed the
name of any hospital, where the injured got treated. No incriminating item or weapon
used in the incident had recovered though the police party inspected the place of
occurrence after sometime of the the said altercation. A counter case has also been
lodged by the rival side who are the present petitioners against the informant side.
Further, it is a settled law that the basic rule of the criminal justice system is bail and
not jail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and again reiterated through the
judicial pronouncements that the Court must enforce this principle in practice.
Considering the above discussed facts, it is a fit case to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are
admitted on anticipatory bail and directed to surrender before the court below within 15
days of this order and on event of their surrender or arrest within the stipulated period,
they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- with
two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below, subject to
the conditions laid down u/s 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated
Sd/-
(Prabhat Kumar Sharma)
A.J.C. XVIII, Ranchi
JO Code- JH-00500