D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner apprehends his arrest in Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2005 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 120 -B, IPC as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that on 28.5.2005 at about 6 p.m. while the informant Assistant Manager, Brahmdiha Open Cast Coalmines Project was working in his project office, the accused Atul Kumar Agrawal, Ashok Kumar Choudhary with other 6 -8 miscreants arrived there variously armed with rifles and guns on Qualis as well as Maruti Van. The accused Atul Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Choudhary commanded the other accused persons to eliminate the informant as he was an important person in the project. Pursuant to such command the miscreants resorted indiscriminate firing but the informant escaped from the place of occurrence and saved his life. The employees intervened and they started brick batting with the aid of the security guards in the project. In the mean time the neighbouring people also assembled and the culprits escaped. Dis closing the genesis it was stated by the informant that there was dispute between the owner of his company Permeshwar Kumar Agrawal with his full brother Mahendra Kumar Agrawal (Petitioner) and that the assailant Atul Kumar Agrawal who led the gang of the miscreants was the son of the petitioner. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla is a respectable person and no overt act has been attributed against him except the allegation that he hatched criminal conspiracy for the occurrence. The learned Counsel further added that the parties have entered into litigation from lower Courts to Calcutta High Court and the Apex Court in respect of disputes in the properties. The owner of the factory Permeshwar Kumar Agrawal was the Member of Parliament for two terms and on account of his political influence the petitioner and his son have been implicated in the instant case. The allegation against the petitioner is for the offence under Section 120 -B and it is relevant to mention that in the Criminal Writ Petition viae W.P.(Cr.) No. 325 of 2006 Krishna Murari Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. the Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Zone. Bokaro had sworn the counter -affidavit on behalf of the State and with reference to paragraph No. 13 therein it was stated on oath that the case was true against only three FIR named accused persons and was not true against the petitioner Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla and this fact was based upon different internal memos.
(3.) MR . Kaushik Sarkhel learned Counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposed the contention and submitted that the property disputes between the parties though are admitted but it would be evident that the petitioner could be able to influence the Investigating Agency and the high police officials. Yet, observation was made by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 325 of 2006 passed on 4.2.2008 by giving liberty to the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation and conclude the same without further delay. But the Investigating Officer has not yet submitted charge -sheet in spite of the said observation which shows male fides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without prejudice to the merit of this case, in the event of his arrest or surrender within 15 days of this order, the petitioner Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ - (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Giridih(M) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 981 of 2005 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.;