DR. ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these anticipatory bail applications are heard together as both of them arises out of same FIR in Kotwali Sadar P.S. Case No. 362 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 6422 of 2016 were lodged on the basis of one written report of one Shobhit Ranjan alleging therein that on 10-11-2016, the informant along with his four friends namely Niraj alias Nilesh, Pandijee, Sukhra Bhaiya, Mukesh Pandey and driver Bablu went to Rajrappa and after ' Pooja Path' ? came to Ranchi and thereafter they went to Raj Residency (hotel) to participate in the Ring Ceremony of their friend Mithlesh Yadav. It is submitted that in the said hotel, D. J. Programme and wet party was going on and there were 25 to 26 persons. It is alleged that during the dance party, scuffle took place between Mukesh Pandey and Dr. Mukesh (the petitioner in A.B.A No. 4583/2016). On seeing this, Dr. Sachin, Dr. Arun (the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4840/2016), Baban Singh, Pappu and Robert started assaulting the friends of the informant. Thereafter, the informant, Dr. Mukesh, Sumit and Manish tried to pacify the matter with the help of other persons and the drunken Mukesh Pandey was taken to a room nearby, where he was sleeping unconscious and thereafter on the next morning at 10.30 hours, they took Mukesh Pandey, to City Hospital, where he was found dead.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A No. 4853 of 2016 while pressing the anticipatory bail application has submitted that when the scuffle took place other persons who were in the party, assaulted the petitioner firstly and the instant occurrence took place.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in A.B.A. No.4840 of 2016 has submitted that no case under Sec. 302, IPC, is made out, as Mukesh Pandey since deceased has assaulted Dr. Mukesh firstly thereafter it is alleged that this petitioner and other persons interfered and tried to pacify the matter and there was no intention to cause grievious injury to the informant.