RAJIV KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner namely, Rajiv Kumar Pandey who is in custody in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1020 of 2016 for offence registered U/Ss. 341/342/323/427/504/506/307/435/485/34 I.P.C.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that forerunner of the present case is that on 13.04.2016, a FIR was lodged by Rajiv Kumar Pandey with Govindpur Police Station and the Govindpur Police Station registered under Sections 341/342/323/427/504/506/307/ 435/485/34 I.P.C and in the said FIR, serious allegation has been alleged against the management of the Company and investigation is going on. In the FIR it has also been stated that the petitioner along with the members was making a signature campaign. Just then 20 -25 persons surrounded them and snatched the register. These persons included HR persons of the management, security guards and outside gunda elements. The workers were manhandled and pushed around and told that all those signing and doing union work will be dismissed from employment. They were also told that their leaders can be eliminated. It is to be borne in mind that labourers were making peaceful campaign for taking signatures however, they were brutally assaulted. He has further submitted that when the management came to know about the lodging of the FIR by the petitioner, in which investigation is proceeding, subsequently, with the local police the Company got manufactured the case and got arrested the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further stated that FIR lodged by the petitioner -Rajiv Kumar Pandey is at 17.30 p.m. whereas, FIR lodged by the opposite party namely, G. Mohan Krishna was 18.15 p.m., so it is a counter case. He has said that whatever took place was a situation arising out of legitimate demonstration by the Union of labourers in which even the office bearers and petitioner was assaulted. He has further submitted that according to the fardbayen/FIR of the management, the incident is of around 5.30 a.m. and it was reported to the Govindpur Police Station at around 6.00 a.m., then how come the police came 1 1/2 hour later at 7.30 a.m. as per their own FIR, this indicates that the FIR is a concocted and manufactured. So the FIR of the Company is apparently doubtful and manufactured. The petitioner is in custody since 20.04.2016. Therefore, petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has submitted with reference to the case dairy that one Ravi Kumar said injuries were sustained by him but of simple in nature and one injury was of burnt injury. However, it is not clear who has inflicted the burn injury. The learned counsel for the State further stated that the petitioner was provoking and instigating the workers, as a result of which properties were broken and security guards were confined to rooms and the room was burnt. Therefore, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.