Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2017A.B.A./4117/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an apprehension of arrest regarding offences under the Indian Forest Act and Kendu Leaves Act. The bail was to be enforced if he surrendered within four weeks or was arrested, subject to a bail bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 320 of 2017, requiring surrender or arrest within four weeks to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties subject to JC condi

Sunil Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B. A. No. 4117 of 2017

¶3

Sunil Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. For the Opp. Party : Addl. P.P.

¶6

02 / 18.07.2017 Apprehending his arrest, the sole petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 320 of 2017 registered under Sections 26, 33, 41, 42, 52, of the Indian Forest Act 1927 State Amendment Act ( Bihar Act 9 of 1990) and under Sections 2, 5, 10, 14, 15 and 16 of the Kendu Leaves Act.

¶7

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. PP for the State.

¶8

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. JH-01CJ-5632 which was intercepted by the complainant for transporting the Kendu leaves without proper permit. It was further alleged that the transport permit, which was carried by driver of the vehicle, was having blank date and time column. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner has committed offence under various provisions of the Indian Forest Act and Bihar Kendu leaves ( Control and Trade) Act, 1973. It was further submitted by learned senior counsel that allegations against the petitioner are all false and he is a mere employee of Budhia Agencies Private Limited and he has nothing to do with the transportation of Kendu leaves. It is further submitted that in view of Section 21 of the Bihar Kendu leaves (Control and Trade) Act, 1973 and provisions of Indian Forest Act are not applicable in this case. Hence, this petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

The learned Addl. PP opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory

¶10

bail to the sole petitioner. Hence, in the event of his arrest by the police or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Chaibasa in connection with Complaint Case No. 320 of 2017 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶11

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶12

Smita/-

Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Laxman Ganjhu Alias Kohram Jee Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arbind Mahto And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bajrang Pahan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajeshwar Upadhyay Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Madhup Kumar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jafar Raja Alias Jafirul Haque Alias Jafirul Haq Alias Jafar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand