Allowed

Dharmendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2020A.B.A./98/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench granted anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 2, a tractor owner accused in illegal sand mining, subject to security and cooperation conditions. Prayers for the other two petitioners were rejected as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipation bail to petitioner no. 2 on depositing Rs. 5,000 cash security and furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties if arrested within four weeks.

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 98 of 2020

¶3

Dharmendra Kumar

¶4

Md. Shahid Khan @ Md. Sahid Khan

¶5

Nishant Kashyap … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.S. Kumar, Addl. P.P.

¶8

------

¶9

Order No.03 Dated- 03.03.2020

¶10

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.755 of 2019 registered under sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 54(1)/52(5) of J.M.M.C.R. Rules, and 21 MM (DR) Act.

¶11

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

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 – Dharmendra Kumar and the petitioner no.3 – Nishant Kashyap have been arrested and hence, he does not wants to press the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail on behalf of them.

¶13

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1 – Dharmendra Kumar and the petitioner no.3 –Nishant Kashyap is rejected as not pressed.

¶14

So far as the petitioner no.2 – Md. Shahid Khan @ Md. Sahid Khan is concerned; the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioner no.2 are all false. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 drawing attention of the Court to annexure-2 at page no.6 of the brief that the petitioner no.2 is the owner of the tractor bearing registration no. JH20C 4289 which was seized by the police for transporting illegally excavated sand. It is then submitted that the

¶15

petitioner no.2 has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.10 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.2 is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security and undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner no.2 be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.2.

¶17

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 petitioner no.2 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 on depositing cash security of Rs.5,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Garhwa, in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.755 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioner no.2 will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Sonu-

Dharmendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar 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

Lalita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikandar Gaddi Alias Champiyan Gaddi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanghmitra Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinki Raj Mittal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand