Allowed

Sharvan Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Jan 2023A.B.A./9671/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On behalf of petitioners in Jasidih P.S. Case No. 518 of 2020, anticipating arrest for alleged illegal sand transportation, the High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail due to lack of recovered evidence and presence of criminal antecedents, directing surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Privilege of anticipatory bail granted; directed to surrender within four weeks; bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties to be furnished upon arrest or surrender.

Sharvan Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.9671 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

------

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

-----For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P ------

¶6

Order No.03 Dated- 11.01.2023

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶8

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 518 of 2020 instituted under Sections 414/34 and 413 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 21 of MMDR Act, Rule 54 of JMMC Rule, 2004, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per FIR, the allegation is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are owner and driver of the seized vehicle bearing Reg. No.JH-17R-9651 respectively which was found indulged in illegal transportation of 100 cft. sand without valid transport challan and other documents.

¶10

From perusal of record, it appears that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioners and they have no concern with the seized sand. It further appears that petitioners have no criminal antecedents and they have falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Co-accused with similar allegation has already been extended privilege of anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2021 and 01.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.1228 of 2021 and A.B.A. No.3920 of 2021 respectively. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of

¶13

Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Deoghar in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 518 of 2020 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Pappu/

Sharvan Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharvan Kumar 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

Pran Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Saw Alias Mantu Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Inder Bhusahn Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramjeevan Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhiraj Kumar Singh Alias Chhotu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand