Vijay Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Gurdari P.S. Case No.13 of 2017 (G.R. No. 984 of 2017) registered under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was standing near the main accused-Manglu Oraon while Manglu Oraon was committing the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false and except the confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Meena Toppo, there is no material in record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is also submitted that in paragraph no.8 of the case diary, earlier the statement of Meena Toppo is recorded wherein she stated that she came to know about the occurrence from the villagers and she was not the eye-witness but about one and half month thereafter, she in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she claimed to be the eye-witness but even in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has not attributed anything incriminating against the petitioner except that the petitioner was also standing near the place of occurrence. It is next submitted that except surmises and presumption, there is no other materials in record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that the main accused-Manglu Oraon has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.03.2019 in A.B.A. No.6420 of 2018 and three other co- accused persons has also been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.06.2018 in A.B.A. Nos.239, 1952 and 654 of 2018 respectively. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Gumla, in connection with Gurdari P.S. Case No.13 of 2017 (G.R. No. 984 of 2017) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.