Indrajeet Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.18 of 2019 registered under sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the driver of the truck bearing registration number NL02Q 0969 which was seized by police on the allegation of transporting stolen coal. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to page no.18 of the brief which is the certified copy of the order of Sessions Judge, Dumka by which he has disposed of the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that it has been observed that the I.O. of the case has found the document of the coal to be genuine after verification and the said coal was purchased from New Royal Enterprises, Durgapur (West Bengal) and the learned Sessions Judge even observed that the coal was not stolen but still the learned court has neither allowed nor rejected the anticipatory bail and rather disposed it of with an observation that the petition of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 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.

Perusal of the record reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to discharge the duty cast upon him while exercising the power under section 438 Cr.P.C. It is a settled principle of law that the court exercising the power under section 438 Cr.P.C. has either to allow it or to reject the prayer for anticipatory bail and ought not delegate the said power to be exercised by the court in which the case is pending as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge in this case and since there is direct allegation against the petitioner of being involved in offence punishable under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code which is a non-bailable offence may be as it appeared to the learned Sessions Judge in this case that the allegations may not be true, so the learned Sessions Judge ought not have held that the petition of anticipatory bail is not maintainable on the ground of non existence of any apprehension of being arrested in connection of any non-bailable offence.

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 four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail 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 S.D.J.M., Dumka, in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No.18 of 2019 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.