The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a syndicate run illegal coal trade case. The court held that custodial interrogation is required due to the serious nature of the allegations.
Prayer for anticipatory bail 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.2742 of 2021
------
Dilip Singh
.... .... …. Petitioner Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P
Order No.04 Dated- 23.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 203 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 2274 of 2010 instituted under Sections 413, 414, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in association with the co-accused persons have formed syndicate to run illegal trade of coal and 25.100 MT steam coal was recovered from the alleged truck. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in seventeen other cases. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and runs syndicate of illegal coal, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the specific details of the syndicate of illegal coal. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Pappu/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the privileges of anticipatory bail in the special jurisdiction under Sections 413, 414, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the nature of the allegation involving a syndicate of illegal coal trade.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
