Dismissed

MD Amin v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2019A.B.A./8252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granting anticipatory bail to petitioners in Rajrappa P.S. Case No.163 of 2018 upon their arrest within four weeks, contingent on depositing 10,000/- each and furnishing bail bonds with sureties subject to CrPC Section 438(2) conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail conditioned on deposit of 10,000/-, bail bond with sureties, and cooperation with investigation within four weeks.

MD Amin Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 8252 of 2018

¶2

Md. Amin

¶3

Zamil Akhtar @ Jamil Akthar 3. Md. Kamil Akhtar … Petitioners Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. N. Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. ------

¶8

Order No.02 Dated- 07.01.2019

¶9

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No.163 of 2018 registered under sections 147/148/149/341/323/337/338/427/353/504/295A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.

¶10

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

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. There is specific allegation against only three persons leading the mob and the petitioners are not amongst them and have been implicated in this case only because they were the persons of the locality. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit 10,000/- each in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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

¶13

anticipatory bail.

¶14

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 petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the

¶15

event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each with the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and on 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, Ramgarh or its successor court, in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No.163 of 2018, with the condition that they will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Sonu/Gunjan-

MD Amin v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Amin 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

Ramesh Dubey Vs Raj Kumar Pathak And Ors.

Employees State Insurance Cor Vs M/S Kalyani Iron Foundary

Most.Sarita Devi And Anr. Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Shiv Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand