Nityanand Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand

Today reply on behalf of the petitioners to the counter?affidavit has been

filed.

Office to make diary entry and tag the same with the record.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Katras

P.S. Case No. 176 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.2816 of 2016 for the

offence under sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have

been falsely implicated in this case. There is no allegation of assault against the

petitioner no. 1, further the allegation against the petitioner no. 2 of causing

injury on the person of the husband of the informant is also a false story. Due to

dispute with regard to family property, the instant case has been lodged. Further,

it has been submitted that co?accused Sk. Kurban has already been granted bail

by the Hon''ble Court. Further, it has been submitted that the informant and her

family members got manufactured a injury report showing the injuries to be

grievous. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is a lady and

aged about 63 years old. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners

deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P as well as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposed

the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has filed counter?affidavit stating therein that the informant''s husband was admitted in Medanta Hospital on 16.07.2016 and

he remained admitted there till 30.08.2016 for about 1, 1/2 months as per the

Medanta legal injury report dated 6.07.2016, severe head injury with fracture of

skull base with grievous injury has been shown which is part of the charge?sheet.

And out of Rs. 10 lacs spent for treatment of her husband and Rs. 5 lacs has

been paid by accused petitioners though Islahiya Committee Sheikh Brathri,

Jharia and Rs. 2,50 lacs will be required for operation of informant''s husband.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also

considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the

petitioners is hereby rejected. The petitioners, if so advised, may surrender

before the trial court within three weeks from the date of this order and pray

for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court without being

prejudiced by this rejection order.