Allowed

Santosh Mistri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2019A.B.A./23/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing anticipatory bail petition filed by three individuals fearing arrest in a case under the Indian Forest Act, the Court granted bail subject to deposit of security and furnishing of bond to a Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail with condition of depositing cash security of Rs. 2,000/- and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties within four weeks.

Santosh Mistri Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 23 of 2019

¶2

Santosh Mistri

¶3

Jawahar Mistri 3. Badri Mistri … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶6

------

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 15.01.2019

¶8

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C.F. Case No. 99 of 2013 registered under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

¶9

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

¶10

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.9 of the brief. It is further submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

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

¶12

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 above named petitioners be given the privilege of 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. 2,000/- each and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

¶13

Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with C.F. Case No. 99 of 2013 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Sonu/Gunjan-

Santosh Mistri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Mistri 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

Amitabh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Aksar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bulaki Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhim Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narayan Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishal Yadav Alias Vishal Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand