Allowed

MD Rizwan Rayeen v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Jul 2022A.B.A./3415/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to applicant No.2 in an application filed under sections 420/467/468/471 of IPC and provisions of the MMDR Act, citing that other co-accused had already been granted bail and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending.

What did the court decide?

Directs release of applicant No.2 on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties subject to specified conditions.

MD Rizwan Rayeen Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3415 of 2022

¶3

Sarful Ansari @ Md. Sarful Ansari 2. Md. Rizwan Rayeen …… ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party ------

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶5

For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, A.P.P

¶6

¶7

5/21.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for

¶8

the State.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant no.2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection Patratu P.S Case No.140/2020 under sections 420/467/468/471 of the IPC, section 21 of the MMDR Act and section 13 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation of Storage), Rule 2017 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant No.1 has been arrested as such, he not pressing anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant No.1 and he is only pressing anticipatory bail application on behalf of applicant No.2, namely Md. Rizwan Rayeen.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged against the driver and owner of 15 trucks with these allegations that the informant H.R. Mohanty, a CISF Officer posted at PVUNL Patratu with these allegations that on 11.07.220, at 16 hours and 45 minutes, one truck bearing registration No. JH02 5970 had arrived to PVUNL, thermal gate and driver produced the challan issued by the government of Jharkhand showing that RU Crusher Ormanjhi had sold 400 CFT stone chips to Kanwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. through M/s Sunil Kumar of Patratu. On suspicion, the said challan was verified on the e-portal of government of Jharkhand and it was found that the said challan issued on 27.06.2020 against the Vehicle No. Jh02AM 8174. Subsequently, several such challans were found to be forged and fabricated which were earlier supplied stones chip to PVUNL.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the owner of the truck. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Indeed the applicant had given the said truck on rent to M/s. Sunil Kumar and the drivers of the said truck were following the instructions of M/s. Sunil Kumar. From the seizure memo, it is apparent that the truck bearing registration No.JH 02T 5970 was only found to be loaded with 400 CFT of stone chipps.

¶13

The truck of the petitioner was seized empty and the applicant is having no criminal antecedents and has been implicated in this case just to humiliate him on being arrested by the police. The co-accused namely Ranjit Kumar and Jitan Ram has been granted bail in A.B.A.No.4485/2021 vide order dated 22.07.2021 and co-accused Sunil Kumar has been granted bail in A.B.A.No.4944/2020 vide order dated 13.10.2020 by the co-ordinate bench of this court. The co-accused Sulochan Pillai and Praween Kumar have been granted bail in B.A.Nos. 3732/2022 and 6809/2020 vide order dated 05.07.2022 & 20.01.2021 respectively by the co-ordinate bench of this court.

¶14

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending or calling for counter affidavit from the State. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail, at this stage.

¶16

In the event of arrest, the above named applicant no.2 involved in the aforesaid case be released on anticipatory bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶17

i. The applicant no.2 shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶18

ii. The applicant no.2 shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

iii. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant no.2.

¶20

iv. The applicant no.2 shall co-operate in the trial before the court below and in case of non-cooperation, the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicants without any reference to this Court.

¶21

(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)

¶22

tarun

MD Rizwan Rayeen v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Rizwan Rayeen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikash Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahmud Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Reyasat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhas Kr Yadav Alias Subhash Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Sandilya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamdev Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand