Held that since the investigation was still ongoing and allegations were serious, the court was not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer.
The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is 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. 3872 of 2018
Reserved On : 06/09/2018 Pronounced On : 12/09/2018
Three petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with MGM P.S. Case No. 25 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 958 of 2018, registered under Sections 379 & 411 of the I.P.C., lodged on the basis of one written report given by Vijay Kumar Yadav alleging therein that he is working in Security Department of Tata Steel Ltd. and had received information that the steel which have been manufactured in Tata Steel Plant sent to different stock ward are being stolen at Bahra Toll near Petrol Pump in NH-33, where drivers in connivance with the officers used to steal the TMT bars loaded in trucks and to sell in the market on different price and one Toll is being operated jointly by these three petitioners. It is further alleged that 50% of the total value is being paid to the driver and remaining theft articles were sold at 30-40% less price than the original price in the market. On 31.03.2018, he received information that three trailers loaded with TMT are being taken by truck no. NL01NN0349 loaded with 50490 kg, driver Niraj Kumar Singh and truck no. NL 01G2939 loaded with 41920 kg, driver Sanjay Jha and truck no. NL01G4929 loaded with 40230 kg driver Subhas Mahto, which caused loss of total Rs. 2,68,367/-. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case was instituted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to business rivalry and no case under Sections 379 & 411 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. So, petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Case diary has been received. From perusal of para-44 of the case diary, it appears that one Sadhu Kaiborto in his
-2-
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has alleged that these petitioners are the owners of Behra Toll and used to load materials in the trailers and were engaged in theft of the TMT Bars of Tata Steel Company and in para44 statement of Vinod Kumar Gaud has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and in para-45 statement of Yogendra Gaud under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded and they all have named these petitioners and coaccused.
Be that as it may, keeping in view that investigation of this case is still going on and also that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious in nature, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Sunil/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioners deserve privilege of anticipatory bail in the present case which is still under investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pradeep Kesri @ Baba
Baban Yadav
Bahira Yadav @ Ram Awtar Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
