Piyush Berlia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 July, 2017

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Piyush Berlia vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 July, 2017

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   A.B.A. No. 3982 of 2017
                                          
              Piyush Barelia                               .... .... .... Petitioner
                                     Versus
              The State of Jharkhand                       .... .... .... Opp. Party
                
               CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                           
              For the Petitioner          : Mr. D. Jha, Advocate
              For the State               : Addl. P.P.
                                                  
02/12.07.2017

Apprehending his arrest the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.126 of 2017 (G.R. No.457 of 2017) registered under Sections 414/413/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Act and under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the brick kiln situated at villageKaitha, Ramgarh and he procured illegally extracted coal and the police seized 1.5 tons of steam coal kept in the premises of his brick kiln. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner lawfully purchased the steam coal and used certain part of it, while the remaining portion of the steam coal was seized by the police. The petitioner has never indulged in illegal extraction of coal. Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Coaccused person whose case stand on similar footing has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2017 in A.B.A. No.3812 of 2017. Hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but concedes that co accused person whose case stand on similar footing has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of counsels and the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 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 depositing Rs.3000/ as cash security and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.126 of 2017 (G.R. No.457 of 2017) subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Gunjan/                                           (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court