A.B.A./10268/2022 of UMA CHARAN YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.10268 of 2022

------

Uma Charan Yadav .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

------

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Swami Nath Pd. Rai, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl.P.P

------

Order No.02 Dated- 23.12.2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Barharwa(Pakur) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022 instituted under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

It is alleged that on 08.03.2022 while the informant along with his wife was travelling in Gour Express train and as the train reached at Pakur station, the bag containing with two mobile phones along SIM Cards and other valuable articles have been stolen by some miscreants. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was using one of SIM Cards of the informant bearing SIM No.[REDACTED].

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in FIR and he is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that the petitioner received stolen SIM Card from one Bablu Yadav and Vivek Yadav who found the alleged mobile phone as unclaimed and the same was handed over to the police. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and he has complied the notice issued under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there are sufficient materials collected against the petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering facts and circumstances of this case, as discussed above, from perusal of the CDR location, the role of petitioner has come as present user of SIM No.[REDACTED] stolen in this case. And involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence cannot be doubted. As such, the investigation is at initial stage and custodial interrogation with petitioner is required. Therefore, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)