Allowed

Dilip Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Dec 2015A.B.A./3301/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an owner of a crusher machine, apprehending arrest under Section 379 IPC. The Court noted the petitioner had applied for license renewal prior to its expiry, when the FIR was filed during the intervening period.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to surrender within three weeks on furnishing Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties of like amount.

Dilip Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 3301 of 2015

¶3

¶4

Dilip Prasad Son of late Jailal Mahto, Resident of village Churchu P.O. Ichak P.S. Sadar (Hazaribag) Distt. Hazaribag (Jharkhand)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vikash Kishore, A.P.P.

¶9

04/01.12.2015 Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

Petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 156 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 636 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 8 of the Jharkhand Mineral Sales Rules, 2007 and Sections 4(1A) of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957.

¶11

The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the petitioner had indulged himself in illegally operating Crusher machine.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of a Crusher machine for which he had obtained the license and just before expiry of license on 31.12.2014, the petitioner had already applied on 15.12.2014 but subsequently on 16.02.2015 the license was renewed. Learned counsel further submits that during the intervening period when the application for renewal of license was made the First Information Report was instituted making certain allegations with respect to running of the Crusher machine on 06.02.2015.

¶13

Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

Since the petitioner had applied for renewal of the lisence much prior to the expiry of the license earlier granted to him and during the intervening period the First Information Report was instituted against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 156 of 2015 corresponding to G. R. No. 636 of 2015 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶18

Umesh/-

Dilip Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Banarsi Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Swarup Kumar Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhulika Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Niloy Ganguly and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand