Roshan Kumar @ Roushan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .......... Opp. ... on 15 January, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Roshan Kumar @ Roushan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand .......... Opp. ... on 15 January, 2021

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                A.B.A. No.7416 of 2020
                          -----

Roshan Kumar @ Roushan Kumar .......... Petitioner.

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner :        Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate
For the State        :      Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, A.P.P.
                          -----
Order No.03                                      Date: 15.01.2021

This case is taken up through video conferencing.

The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 414, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17th September, 2020 passed in A.B.A. No.4053 of 2020. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for anticipatory bail primarily due to the reason that on the earlier occasion the petitioner could not bring on record the copy of the agreement dated 23rd October, 2019 executed between him, being the owner of Hyva truck bearing Registration No.JH13E-2576, and one Ram Lakhan Yadav. Since the alleged occurrence took place on 12th April, 2020 leading to lodging of the present first information report, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged involvement of his Hyva truck in illegal mining and transportation of coal.

Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State submits that the aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner cannot be a reason to file the present anticipatory bail application. It is quite possible that the alleged agreement between the petitioner and one Ram Lakhan Yadav is an antedated document and has been manufactured pursuant to dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application. Earlier vide order dated 17th September, 2020 passed in A.B.A. No.4053 of 2020, the petitioner's prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court on merit and hence the petitioner does not deserve reconsideration of his prayer for anticipatory bail.

-2-

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that since the petitioner's anticipatory bail application has earlier been rejected by this Court on merit, merely because the petitioner by way of filing present anticipatory bail application has brought on record a copy of the agreement dated 23rd October, 2019 allegedly executed between him and said Ram Lakhan Yadav, in support of his contention that the seized Hyva truck was given to Ram Lakhan Yadav cannot be a ground for filing subsequent anticipatory bail application. Hence, I am not inclined to reconsider the same.

Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court