Allowed

Vimal Mehta v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2017A.B.A./3285/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with the Bagodar P.S. Case No.26 of 2017, directing surrender and outlining conditions involving cash security and bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Directs the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and grants anticipatory bail directed to be enlarged after deposit of Rs.2500 and furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10000 with two sureties.

Vimal Mehta Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3285 of 2017

¶2

Vimal Mehta .... .... …. Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P.

¶6

02/13.06.2017 Apprehending his arrest in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.26 of 2017 instituted under Section 175, 379, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 21(A), 21(b) of Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation)Act,1957, Sections 4 and 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶7

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Addl.P.P. Appearing for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though it is alleged that he is the owner of a crusher plant and in the premises of his crusher plant, a tractor loaded with 50 cubic feet stones was found but in fact he is neither the owner of crusher nor he has any concern with the crusher. Moreover, the Mukhia of Gram Panchayat Samittee of the village Atka East, Block Bagodar, District- Giridih along with the Panchayat Samittee members as well as two ward members have issued a joint certificate stating therein that the petitioner is a farmer and he is not associated with the business of crusher plant and he has no concern directly or indirectly with any crusher plant. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering within the stipulated time, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred) as cash security and 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, Giridih in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.26 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.360 of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶11

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶12

Animesh

Vimal Mehta v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Mehta 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

Sk Mansur Ali And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rashid Anwar Alias Lala And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ibrar Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Taslim Mian Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Abid Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sohrai Bediya Alias Sohrai Kumar Bediya And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand