Allowed¶14

Panbabu Kewat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2024A.B.A./524/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A.B.A. No. 524 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Navneet Kumar, J. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC allowed in Petarwar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 (G.R. No. 96 of 2022), Sections 414/34 IPC and 21 MMDR Act, illegal transportation of coal, Maa Nishad Coke factory, parity with co-accused (Imtiyaj Ansari, Anil Yadav), bail bond Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, conditions u/s 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to surrender within 4 weeks and be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, subject to conditions u/s 438(2) CrPC and conditions of cooperation and appearance before the Trial Court. ¶14

Panbabu Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in Petarwar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 (G.R. No. 96 of 2022) under Sections 414/34 IPC and Section 21 MMDR Act, is entitled to protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

¶8

Court's answer

The court found it just and proper to grant the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 (G.R. No. 96 of 2022), in view of the persuasive submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to surrender in the court below within 4 weeks and, upon surrender or arrest, to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and further conditions that he cooperate in the criminal proceeding and appear before the Trial Court as and when required, failing which the Trial Court may take appropriate action for cancellation of bail.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – S. 438 CrPC – Petitioner, alleged owner/proprietor of factory Maa Nishad Coke, apprehended arrest in Petarwar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 (G.R. No. 96 of 2022) u/Ss. 414/34 IPC and 21 MMDR Act over seizure of six trucks loaded with coal without valid license around the factory premises – Co-accused owner/driver of trucks already granted anticipatory bail; petitioner previously granted anticipatory bail in Petarwar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2022 and acquitted in Petarwar P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011 – Held, just and proper to grant anticipatory bail; petitioner directed to surrender within 4 weeks and to be enlarged on bail on bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, subject to S. 438(2) CrPC conditions and cooperation with the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 524 of 2024

¶2

Panbabu Kewat --- --- Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.

¶7

07/05.07.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Spl.P.P. representing the State.

¶8

Petitioner seeks protection in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 (G.R. No. 96 of 2022) registered under Section 414/34 of the IPC and 21 of the MMDR Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat.

¶9

It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is the owner and proprietor of the factory Maa Nishad Coke and 6 trucks were seized around the factory premises including two trucks from inside the factory premises and four trucks outside the premises loaded with coal without any valid license and accordingly petitioner was alleged to have been involved in the illegal transportation of the coal. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire allegation made in the F.I.R gets falsified in itself because of the fact that in the F.I.R itself it is categorically mentioned that petitioner-Company Maa Nishad Coke is a valid license holder. Further, it has been pointed out that co-accused persons, who were said to be the owner and driver of the trucks have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail namely Imtiyaj Ansari @ Imtiyaj @ Intja Ansari vide A.B.A. No. 11533 of 2022 dt. 01.02.2023, Anil Yadav vide A.B.A. No. 3631 of 2023 dt. 15.06.2023. Further, it is pointed out that on earlier two criminal cases have been instituted

¶10

against the petitioner out of whom in Petarwar P.S. Case No. 24 of 2022 he has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail and further in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1170 of 2011, he has been acquitted by the court of Learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro vide judgment dated 07.03.2019. Therefore, it is prayed that petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that 6 trucks have been found involved in illegal transportation of coal from the premises of the petitioner company, and, therefore, petitioner does not deserve to granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case.

¶13

In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found just and proper to grant the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of 4 weeks and in the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2022 (G.R. No. 96 of 2022), subject to the conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that petitioner will cooperate in the criminal proceeding and he will appear before the Trial Court as and when required, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take appropriate action as per the provision of law for cancellation of his bail.

¶15

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶16

Panbabu Kewat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panbabu Kewat 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dukhmochan Rao Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nutan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Mahto Alias Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saharabhanu Khatoon Alias Saharbano Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Maryam Nesha Vs the State of Jharkhand