Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 281 (JHR)

Shahawaj Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-20

R.BANUMATHI

body2014
ORDER Petitioner is represented by learned counsel, Mr. Arbind Kumar Choudhary and the opposite party-State is represented by Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No 492 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 1920 of 2010 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Sri Rajiv Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.6.2010, in the evening, one Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. JH10J 8243 was stolen away by some unknown person when the owner/complainant had gone to Budhani Hatia for purchasing vegetables and parked the vehicle at Hatia. Based on the complaint, a case was registered being Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No. 492 of 2010 under sections 379 of Indian Penal Code. The said motorcycle has been recovered in Palajori (Deoghar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 in which the petitioner was arrested and thereafter, released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2010 passed in B.A. No.5165 of 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said motorcycle being Registration No. No. JH10J 8243 was actually sold to the father of the petitioner and in that way the said motorcycle was found in the house of the petitioner and the petitioner is noway responsible for the alleged theft of the motorcycle nor for receiving the same as stolen property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that for the said motorcycle, a case has been registered not only against the petitioner but also against the father of the petitioner and against the uncle of the petitioner. He further submitted that in respect of Palajori (Deoghar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010, the petitioner was already granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2010 passed in B.A. No.5165 of 2010 and, therefore, prayed for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that the motorcycle in question is not only involved in the present case but also in Palajori (Deoghar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 and both the cases are related and therefore, for the purpose of further investigation, arrest of the present petitioner is essential. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that the motorcycle in question is not only involved in the present case but also in Palajori (Deoghar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 and both the cases are related and therefore, for the purpose of further investigation, arrest of the present petitioner is essential. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has also been submitted against the petitioner in the present case i.e., Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No 492 of 2010 under section 379, 411/34 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. as also from perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was already granted bail in Palajori (Deoghar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010. In so far as the present case is concerned, the charge- sheet has already been filed and at this stage, no prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of three weeks from today and on such surrender he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Sri Rajiv Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Bhuli) P.S. Case No 492 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 1920 of 2010 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.