Md. Mohiuddin Ansari vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Gaunjhu, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Defects, if any, as pointed out by the office are ignored. The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 39/2020.

It has been alleged that a raid was conducted and one Omni van loaded with diesel was seized. The apprehended accused persons had confessed that the diesel was illegally purchased from the petitioner and they used to sell it to other persons by adding some chemical at a higher price.

It appears that the petitioner has been implicated only on account of the disclosure made by the apprehended accused persons. It further appears that the diesel was subsequently made adulterated by mixture of chemicals as has been purportedly stated by the apprehended accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and in fact no incriminating articles were recovered from the premises of the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner.

Regard being had to the fact that there is no other incriminating material which would indicate the complicity of the petitioner barring the disclosure made by the apprehended accused persons, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on such surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 39/2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands allowed.