The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Asharfi Chaudhary in connection with Section 5(d) and 14 of the Bihar Saw Mills Act, holding that no case was made out for bail.
The anticipatory bail application was 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. 4168 of 2022
Asharfi Chaudhary ..... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. --------
06/ 04.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C. Case No. 333 of 2022, registered under Sections 5 (d) and 14 of Bihar Saw Mills Act, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that, as per allegations made in the offence report, it is alleged that on 27.02.2022 after having received secret information the informant along with forest officials reached Pipardih and at the Saw Mill logs of different size and also of different species found there of which no proper document could be produced and the said Saw Mill also belonged to the applicantaccused Asharfi Chaudhary.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent witness of the seizure memo.
Learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the Saw Mill does not belong to the applicant as such all the allegations made against him are belied and he is having no criminal antecedent. He has been implicated in this case with the object to humiliate him on being arrested by the police.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the applicant has made false averment in the Bail Application. He is also having criminal antecedent of the like nature bearing C-1553 of 2020.
In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, no case of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
(Subhash Chand, J.)
P.K.S.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in connection with C. Case No. 333 of 2022 under Sections 5(d) and 14 of Bihar Saw Mills Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Asharfi Chaudhary
Subhash Chand
P.K.S
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
