High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramchandra Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 JH CK 0139

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379 · Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 21 · Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 — Rule 54 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 5447 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

23 paragraphs · 449 words

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter

within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the

present.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 106 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3156 of 2015 instituted under Sections 379 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, Section 54 of J.M.M.C. Rule, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of

anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used excavator to store illegally

extracted stone at the crusher for sale. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards

para-10 of the instant anticipatory bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is next

submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and he has been implicated in

this case only on the basis of surmises and presumption. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the

investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of

anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh within six weeks from today and in the

event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) as cash security and on furnishing bail

bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in

connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 106 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3156 of 2015 with the condition that he will co-operate with the

investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the

Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down

under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.