Girijesh Kumar, vs State of Jharkhand, & Ors.,

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with

Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 157 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1671 of 2016

for the offence under sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have

been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it has been submitted that the

husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 were assaulted by

the husband and sons of the informant due to which he had sustained injuries.

Further, it has been submitted that it does not appear from the F.I.R that the

petitioners were armed with what type of weapon rather the entire allegation

with regard to assault is totally vague and unspecific.

Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the

prayer for anticipatory bail.

From perusal of para 24 of the case diary, it appears that some of the

persons have received injury.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 namely, namely, Tilla Devi and

Faguni Devi and accordingly they are directed to surrender in the Court below

within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or

surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioners on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/? (Rupees ten thousand)each, with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of Smt. Richa

Srivastava, J.M, Ist Class, Hazaribag, in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No.

157 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1671 of 2016, subject to the conditions

as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C . The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are

directed to deposit Rs. 3,000/? each in the trial court on the date of their

surrender. Thereafter, trial court is directed to issue notice to the injured?Nirmal

Mahto and after his appearance the aforesaid amount would be released in

favour of Nirmal Mahto.

So far as the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 is

concerned, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 1.

Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.