High CourtsSingle Bench

Imamali Mian @ Imam Ali vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 2 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 JH CK 0137

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 387, 379, 411 · Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 — Section 30 · Indian Forest Act, 1927 — Section 33, 42 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 5647 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

18 paragraphs · 424 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in

connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.133 of 2014 (G.R. No. 1226 of 2014) registered under sections 147/148/149/323/307/387/379/411 of the

Indian Penal Code, Section 30 of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and under Section 33/42 of Indian Forest Act, 1927.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal act of collecting

extortion from trucks loaded with coal and the trucks loaded with coal was found and seized by the police which did not have any document to show

regarding ownership of the coal loaded in those trucks. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the anticipatory bail application. It is then submitted that

the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. It

is lastly submitted that the co-accused person has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2019 in

A.B.A. No.6788 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner

be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he

shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs.20,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with

two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.133 of 2014

(G.R. No. 1226 of 2014) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating

Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he

will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.