The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple offences under the IPC, Coal Mines Act, and Indian Forest Act. The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the prayer, noting the petitioner was the vehicle owner and investigation was ongoing.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 1675 of 2018
Shahid @ Shahid Khan …… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner :Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State :A.P.P.
05/Dated: 02/07/2018
The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Hazaribagh (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 3643 of 2017 for the offence under sections 413, 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act, under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under section 21 of the MMRD Act, 1957, under section 8 of the Jharkhand Mines Sales Rule, 2007 pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Hazribagh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted through the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R, it goes to show that there is no direct or specific allegation against the petitioner and there is nothing to show that the petitioner is engaged in the alleged act. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner was apprehended only on the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged truck bearing no. MP09HG-2503, which was alleged to have been involved in the alleged act.
Learned A.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle and investigation is still going on, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Satyarthi/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is the alleged owner of a vehicle involved in the offence but faces no specific allegation in the FIR.
5 provisions across 5 enactments
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
