Avinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.R. Rochan, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate -----

¶10

04/25.01.2024 Heard Mr. B.R. Rochan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj

¶11

Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2.

¶12

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.198/2021, registered under Section 419/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are made that M/s Sheela Enterprises was allotted work order from BCCL for transportation of 1,35,000 MT coal and in view of the said transportation, the competent authority of the said company is said to be the petitioner, who has entered into an agreement with the informant and his partner, namely, Santosh Mahato for transportation of the said coal at fixed amount @ 148.71 per ton. He submits that sum of Rs.97,24,000/- has already been paid to the informant, however, there are disputes with regard to certain further amount. He further submits that the entire case is civil in nature and for that, criminal case has been filed. He also submits that co-accused have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.8783 of 2022, vide order dated 16.12.2022.

¶14

2 A.B.A. No. 33 of 2023

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2 submits that huge amount is there and in view of that, privilege of anticipatory bail may not be provided to the petitioner. He further submits that so far as privilege of anticipatory bail granted to other co-accused person is concerned, they were sleeping partners in the business.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the case against the petitioner is made out.

¶17

It is admitted position that the case is arising out of an agreement and sum of Rs.97 Lakhs and odd has already been paid to the informant. The dispute is there with regard to further amount. The case is arising out of an agreement.

¶18

Regard being had to the facts of the case, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad or successor Court in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 198/2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner will not change his mobile number, which is indicated in his Aadhar.

¶19

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

Ajay/

Avinash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Hazam Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Navalesh Kumar Alias Nawalesh Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajendra Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Anita Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajgir Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand