Jharkhand High Court
Sita Ram Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2014
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
A.B.A. No. 346 of 2014
...
Sita Ram Sao ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate.
For the State : - A.P.P.
...
03/01.05.2014The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail as the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension of his arrest in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 36 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3270 of 2012 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 414, 120-B, 34 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code, which is now pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is the registered owner of the seized truck bearing registration no.BPM 9723. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the coal was loaded from C.C.L. on valid documents by the driver of the truck and the said driver has been granted bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there were valid documents in respect of the aforesaid truck as well as the goods to be transported from the C.C.L. but the goods which were transported, were something else than the documents, which were presented before the authorities and for that the petitioner being the owner of the truck, cannot be held responsible.
The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that there is a prima facie case against the present petitioner of having involvement in the alleged crime being the owner of the truck and therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present application and also considering the nature and gravity of accusation made against the present petitioner, who is owner of the truck, this Court is of the view that petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 36 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3270 of 2012 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK