Advocates:
['DILIP KR KARMAKAR', 'LILY SAHAY', '', 'AMIT KUMAR', 'AJAY KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 9352 of 2019

1. Anju Devi

2. Raju Rajak

…

…

…

… Petitioners

- Versus -

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Satnam Singh

….

...

…

Opposite Parties

------

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

(Through: Video Conferencing)

-----

For Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmkar, Advocate

For State : Ms. Lily Sahay, APP

For Opp. No. 2

: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

---

05/19.05.2020

In view of outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, case has been

taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no

objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through

Video Conferencing today at 11:30 A.M. onwards. They have no

complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

This application has been preferred for grant of privilege of

anticipatory bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 101 of 2016,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 458, 380, 406,

420, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution story, allegation against the

petitioner is that the Informant initially filed complaint case No. 1567 of

2015 against five persons which was sent to the Telco Police Station by

the learned Court below for investigation. It is alleged that petitioners

were the owner of House No. 13/399, Birbirsagarh, JEMCO, P.S. Telco,

town Jamshedpur and after mortgage of the said house, the informant

gave Rs. 4.00 lakhs on 16.08.2013; Rs.5.00 lakhs on 21.08.2013 and

Rs.5.00 lakhs on 25.09.2013 to the petitioners and for the said purposes,

three separate money receipts were given by the petitioners. After six

months, the petitioners submitted before the informant that they are not

in position to pay the amount of Rs.14.00 lakhs and requested to execute

a sale deed in favour of the informant. Accordingly, an agreement of sale

was prepared on 15.03.2014 for a consideration of Rs.10.00 lakhs and

the petitioners agreed to return the remaining amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs.

2

The petitioners have also handed over the physical possession of the

house to the informant on 15.03.2014 itself. It is the further case of the

informant that when he was out of station, all the five accused persons

including the present petitioners broke the lock of the said house on

23.06.2014 and forcibly took illegal possession of the same and

committed theft of domestic article worth Rs.60,000/-. On the basis of

the aforesaid facts, the instant case was lodged against accused persons.

Heard Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmkar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Ms. Lily Sahay, learned APP for the State as well as Mr.

Amit Kumar, learned counsel for appearing for the opposite party No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

allegation against the petitioners are false as the petitioner No. 1 has

lodged Telco P.S. Case No. 237 of 2014 for murder of her brother

namely Arun Namata by the opposite party No. 2 and after trial, the

opposite party No. 2 has been convicted for the murder of the brother of

the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 is at present in jail

custody and therefore, this false case has been foisted to settle the scores.

Learned counsel further submits that petitioners are not the owner of

House No. 13/399, rather, petitioners are resident of the said house and

as such, handing over of the delivery of possession of H. No. 13/399

with paper are totally concocted story. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, no case is made out for the aforesaid Sections. Learned

counsel further submits that instant case is counter-blast of Telco P.S.

Case No. 237 of 2014. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the

reasons cited above, the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2

vehemently opposes contention of t