The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail without expressing a view on merits, directing him to seek regular bail from the trial court complying with Supreme Court guidelines.
Anticipatory bail application disposed off; petitioner directed to seek regular bail before the court below.
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. 36 of 2023
Malay Upadhyay ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. --------- Order No. 07/Dated: 6th March, 2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 80 of 2014 (G.R. No. 1959 of 2014) instituted under Sections 379, 413, 34, 467, 468, 120B(II) of the I.P.C., Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that one truck bearing registration no. NL-01G-8766 was seized by the police party. The driver and cleaner of the said truck disclosed the name of this petitioner as the owner of the said truck.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted petitioner has sold the vehicle to Shashi Bhusan Kumar vide agreement dated 15.01.2014 and after selling of the said vehicle now the petitioner is no more owner of the alleged truck. After completion of investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner, hence, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation for further investigation. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
It appears that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the case falls under category “A” of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
-2-
the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 . There is no requirement for custodial trial of the petitioner. Hence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the court below and seek regular bail which shall be disposed off in strict compliance of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) as well as recent observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 233 .
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the case category and charge-sheet submission.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Referred¶9
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.Referred¶12
2023 Live Law (SC) 233
Malay Upadhyay
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
