Allowed

Muslim Sk And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2017A.B.A./3782/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged under sections 379 and 411 IPC regarding illegal running of crushers. The order directed their release on depositing cash security if arrested or surrendering within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail; release on depositing Rs. 10,000 cash security and furnishing bond with two sureties within four weeks.

Muslim Sk And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3782 of 2017

¶3

Muslim Sk. 2. Ahmed Biswas … Petitioners Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, Adv. For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶7

04 /11.07.2017 Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 34 of 2017 (G.R. No. 258 of 2017) registered under section 379 & 411 of the Indian Penal Code, section 54 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 and section 6 of the JMD Rule, 2007.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were illegally running crushers. On such allegation, the chips of various sizes as well as stone dust kept in their crusher were seized by the Inspector of Mines, District Mining Office, Pakur. It is further submitted that the petitioners have stopped running the crusher and the crusher was not operational at the time of raid by the informant. The allegations against the petitioners are all false. The co-accused persons of this case have already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2017 in A.B.A. No. 3559 of 2017. He further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

petitioners – Muslim Sk. and Ahmed Biswas be admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- each and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Pakur, in connection with Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 34 of 2017 (G.R. No. 258 of 2017), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶14

Sonu-

Muslim Sk And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muslim Sk And Anr. 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

Bibhuti Bhushan Singh Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Kedia Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jadu Mandal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Simtaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sahidan Bibi And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.