IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 856 of 2011
Janardan P. ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Kashyap, M.B. Lal, Advocates
For the State : Mr. P.K. Sahay, A.P.P.
03/21.06.2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the
prosecution.
Petitioner, Janardan P. is apprehending his arrest for the offences
under Sections 420/467/468/469/471/474/120B of the Indian Penal Code
in connection with Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2004
corresponding to G.R. No. 114 of 2004.
Petitioner had earlier moved for anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1259 of
2004 which was withdrawn by the petitioner with the liberty for filing fresh
application in the courtbelow and as such the application was dismissed as
withdrawn. Petitioner again moved for anticipatory bail which was dismissed
as not pressed. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present anticipatory
bail application.
According to the F.I.R. the police made investigation and found that in
the name of one Faridabad Industry about 2,65,000 Kg. coal was lifted and it
was sold in the black market. Subsequently, upon investigation it was found
that the petitioner is one of the owner of the said Faridabad Industry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is not connected
with the said Faridabad Industry. Learned counsel has pointed out that from
Annexure4, which shows that the General Manager of the District Industry
Centre, Gurgaon had informed the police that the owners of the said industry
were Alok Sharma and Ashok Sharma. Subsequently, by Annexure5 police
has filed application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad and informed
that it has been informed that the petitioner is not the owner of the said
industry, rather owners of the said industry are Alok Sharma and Ashok
Sharma. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case and accordingly prayed for
anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer and submits that the anticipatory
bail of the petitioner was earlier dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in view of the
fact that the petitioner was earlier granted liberty to file fresh anticipatory
bail application and in course of investigation it has come that the petitioner
is not the owner of the said industry, I am inclined to release the petitioner on
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of
surrender/arrest, the petitioner, Janardan P. shall be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten thousand) with two sureties
of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad in connection with Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2004
corresponding to G.R. No. 114 of 2004 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(H.C. Mishra, J.)
Anit