Istikhar Ansari Alias Tuna Alias Barka vs State Of Jharkhand

The matter has been heard through video conferencing. There is no complaint about audio and visual connectivity.

Petitioner has filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail expressing his apprehension of arrest for alleged offences inter-alia under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of Indian Forest Act and Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act.

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

Mr. Anupam Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. since the petitioner has not been apprehended at the spot rather he has been implicated only by virtue of the fact that he is the owner of the vehicle.

On the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner was sighted at the spot as would be evident from the case diary which has been referred in the impugned order and further, a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been issued to the petitioner to cooperate in the investigation but he is not cooperating the agency and hence it is not a case where anticipatory bail can be granted.

This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties deems it fit and proper to call for the Case Diary and antecedent report of the petitioner.

This case has been listed under the heading for "Orders with defects".

The petitioner undertakes to remove the defect when the normal functioning of the Court will resume.

Let this case be listed after four weeks or immediately after receipt of the Case Diary and antecedent report before appropriate available Bench.