Allowed

Bhim Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2019A.B.A./8414/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with allegations of illegal coal transportation under various IPC and Coals Mine Act sections, imposing standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted releasing petitioner on bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties upon arrest or surrender within four weeks.

Bhim Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 8414 of 2018

¶3

Bhim Yadav aged about 42 years, S/o Ram Vilas Yadav, R/o 567/5 Railway engineering colony P.O., P.s.-Tata nagar Jamshedpur Golmuri Jugsalai, District-East singhbhum. … ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B. Sah, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No. 02: Dated 15^th January, 2019

¶12

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandil Case No. 158 of 2018 for the offence registered under Sections 414, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 30 (II) of the Coals Mine Act.

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration no. JH05AC 4152 which was involved in illegal transportation of coal. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of the Court at page 17 of the brief, which is the copy of the road Delivery Challan, submits that M/s Shyam Traders engaged his truck in coal transportation and he is no way responsible for that and all the liability is of the M/s Shyam Traders. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶16

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner, named above, be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

¶17

to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Seraikela, in connection with Chandil Case No. 158 of 2018 subject to the condition laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. with further conditions that:

¶18

I. the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation of the case,

¶19

II. the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed.

¶20

III. the petitioner will furnish his mobile phone numbers and photo copy of Aadhar Card by way of filing affidavit in the court below and will undertake that he will not change his mobile phone number during the pendency of this case.

¶21

If Investigating Officer requires mobile phone number of the petitioner, he can make appropriate prayer before the trial court and on such prayer being made the court below will provide mobile number of the petitioner to the Investigating Officer.

¶22

Bhim Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Yadav 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

Narayan Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishal Yadav Alias Vishal Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Mistri Vs the State of Jharkhand