Allowed

Binod Saw And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2017A.B.A./4217/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi admitted the petitioners to anticipatory bail in connection with FIRs charges under Sections 272 and 273 IPC and Section 47-A Excise Act for illegal liquor manufacturing, directing release on bail conditions upon arrest or surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners admitted to anticipatory bail to be released on bail on depositing Rs. 1,000 each and furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each if arrested or surrender within four weeks.

Binod Saw And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B. A. No. 4217 of 2017

¶3

Binod Saw

¶4

Sukhdeo Saw

¶5

Narayan Saw … ... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … ... Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Tarun Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶10

2/ 20.07.2017 Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2017 (G.R. No. 783 of 2017) registered under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 47-A of the Excise Act.

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that they indulge themselves in making the country made liquor illegally. It is submitted that neither the petitioners were arrested at the spot nor anything were recovered from their conscious possession rather they have been implicated in this case falsely due to enmity. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged liquor. It is further submitted that co-accused-Kedar Saw and Bhuneshwar Saw, with similar allegation, have already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 2905 of 2017 on 22.5.2017. Therefore, the petitioners be also given the same privilege.

¶13

However, learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail but concedes that co-accused-Kedar Saw and Bhuneshwar Saw have been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶14

Considering the submissions of the counsel and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioners, named above, 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 Rs. 1,000/- each as cash security 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 S.D.J.M., Giridih in connection with Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2017 (G.R. No. 783 of 2017), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶16

AKT

Binod Saw And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Saw And Ors. 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

Md Arif And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Subhojeet Mitra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gyan Chand Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bikash Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Piyush Berlia Vs The State Of Jharkhand