CHUMNU MAHTO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Pawan Ranjan Khatri, learned appearing for the complainant. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 47 of 2014, which has been registered for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 354, 325 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners that with respect to the occurrence, which had taken place on 17.08.2014, the husband of the complainant has already instituted a first information report and subsequent thereto the present complaint case was instituted by making certain addition and alteration in order to make the case non - bailable. It has been submitted that the complaint petition reveals that the case is purely of a civil dispute as an application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was decided in favour of the petitioners and which was affirmed also in the appeal. Learned Sr. counsel submits that initial phase of the complaint revolves around a civil dispute and only to give colour of criminality the allegation has been leveled with respect to the assault committed upon the complainant and other persons. Learned Sr. counsel thus, submits that in view of the background leading to institution of the case, the petitioners deserve anticipatory bail. Mr. Pawan Ranjan Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has referred to the statements of some of witnesses who have been examined in course of enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and has submitted that there is ample evidence of witnesses about the illegal act committed by the petitioners. It has been submitted that the complainant had gone to institute the first information report to the police station but since the petitioners are men of means the police did not register the first information report against petitioners leading to institution of the present complaint case. Learned counsel therefore, submits that in view of the statements of the witnesses examined in course of enquiry, anticipatory bail application is liable to be dismissed outright.

(2.) It appears that prior to the lodging of the present complaint case No. 47 of 2014, in which the petitioners apprehend their arrest, a first information report has already been instituted by the husband of complainant, which was registered as Karra P.S. Case No. 61 of 2014 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code . The narration of the written report reveals that certain occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 17.08.2014, in which the petitioners and others have assaulted the complainant and others. This fact has been reiterated in the complaint petition by developing the entire allegation so as to make the case non -bailable as the allegations have been leveled with respect to making of the case under sections 379 and 354 of the Indian Penal code. It is not in dispute that the complainant herself has stated about the settlement case which was decided in favour of the petitioners against which appeal has been preferred. Subsequently, however, appeal was also dismissed.

(3.) The background leading to institution of the case, thus, suggests purely a civil dispute. Moreover, the main allegation made in the complaint petition no. 47 of 2014 is for the occurrence, which is alleged to have taken place on 17.08.2014, for which a first information report has already been instituted by the husband of the complainant.