High CourtsSingle Bench

Chhotu Soren vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 6 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 JH CK 0043

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 272, 273 · Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 47(a)
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 5644 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 404 words

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary undertakes to remove the following surviving defects within a period of two weeks. ix. (i) P.S. name and No. stated at para-1 may be verified / compared with prayer portion.

(ii) T/C of handwritten pages of Annexure-1 may be given with duly certified to be true.

(iii) Name of learned Advocate is missing at the body of Vakalatnama.

(iv) Full name of petitioner may be stated below his signature at Vakalatnama.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

3.

Petitioner seeks protection in terms of section 438 of Cr. P.C in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 39/2019 instituted under sections 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code and section 47(a) of the Excise Act and pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the FIR and seizure list, alleged incriminating materials i.e. two aluminium utensils and machinery to prepare country liquor from Mahua and 15 litters of Mahua liquor were seized near Sitaram Dam which are totally unconnected with the premises of the petitioner and nothing has been recovered from his possession. However, he has been implicated for serious offences, though there are no independent witnesses to support the allegation. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Petitioner may be granted privilege of anticipatory bail, otherwise he would suffer unnecessary incarceration on such baseless allegations.

5.

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer.

6.

Having considered the facts and circumstances noted above and submissions of the parties and that none of the alleged seized articles or 15 litres of Mahua liquor were recovered from the premises or person of the petitioner, rather from a distant place near Sitaram Dam, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner Chhotu Soren, in the event of his surrender or arrest within a period of four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 39/2019, subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C. and the petitioner and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile no. without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. He will cooperate in the investigation.