Binod Kuamr Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Binod Kuamr Goswami Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail: if arrested or surrendering within three weeks, release on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro (Balidih P.S. Case No. 105/2024), subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, who apprehends arrest for offences under Sections 467/468/471/270/272/273/290/482/485/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Excise Act, 1915 (Balidih P.S. Case No. 105/2024).

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of the petitioner's arrest/surrender within three weeks, he is to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 105/2024.

Key takeaways

The grant of anticipatory bail is subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted. High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar), A.B.A. No. 3612 of 2024, decided 19.07.2024. Petitioner Binod Kumar Goswami apprehended arrest for offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/270/272/273/290/482/485/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Excise Act, 1915 (Balidih P.S. Case No. 105/2024). Per his submission, he was not named in the F.I.R. and his name surfaced in investigation on the basis of an alleged confessional statement of co-accused Vijendra Kumar; he claimed no criminal antecedent and undertook to co-operate with the ongoing investigation; co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Prasad and Om Prakash Singh had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by different Benches of the Court (orders dated 02.07.2024 and 11.07.2024 in A.B.A. Nos. 3443 and 3276 of 2024). Held: petitioner, if arrested or surrendering within three weeks, to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3612 of 2024

Binod Kumar Goswami ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P.

-----

04/19.07.2024 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 467/468/471/270/272/273/290/ 482/485/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Excise Act, 1915.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced in course of investigation on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused Vijendra Kumar. It has been alleged that the petitioner was working in the factory of named accused Jagdish Saw and he used to carry the illegal liquor prepared in the factory by his vehicle to other states. In fact, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle LPT 1109/42 Ex HSD MS BS II bearing registration no. JH21E-2970 which has no connection with the alleged business of illegal liquor. Except the confessional statement of co-accused, the police has not collected any cogent evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Co-accused Dharmendra Kumar Prasad and Om Prakash Singh have already been granted anticipatory bail by different Benches of this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2024 and 11.07.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 3443 of 2024 and A.B.A. No. 3276

of 2024 respectively. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no. 10 of the present application. He, however, undertakes to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest/surrender within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No. 105/2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Manish