Harilal Choudhary @ Harendra Prasad Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... ... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9255 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Harilal Choudhary @ Harendra Prasad Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... ... Opposite ... on 13 September, 2024

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          A.B.A. No. 5895 of 2024

      Harilal Choudhary @ Harendra Prasad son of Sarju Mahato,
      resident of Village and P.O.- Barkangango, P.S. Barkattha, District-
      Hazaribag                              ...       ...     Petitioner
                                   Versus
      The State of Jharkhand                 ....      ...     Opposite Party
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
     For the Petitioner        : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
     For the State             : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
Order No. 03                                     Dated: 13.09.2024

     The petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences

punishable under Sections 379/414/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development &

Regulation) Act, 1957, rules 9/13 of the Jharkhand Minerals

(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,

2017, rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

2004, Sections 43/44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of

Pollution) Act, 1974 and Sections 38/39 of the Air (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in connection with Barkattha P.S. Case

No. 153 of 2022 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

Hazaribag, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

2.    Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to

paragraph-8 of the present anticipatory bail application, submits that

the petitioner had earlier preferred anticipatory bail application being

A.B.A. No. 271 of 2023 in connection with the present case i.e.

Barkattha P.S. Case No. 153 of 2022, which was dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 09.02.2023 passed by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court primarily due to the reason that he had criminal

antecedent. In fact, the petitioner was an accused in G(F) Case No.

540 of 2012 in which he was already acquitted vide judgment dated

15.03.2021

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribag. The petitioner was also an accused in G(F) Case No. 242

of 2013 in which he was acquitted vide judgment dated 27.09.2022

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hazaribag. Under the

said circumstance, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of

anticipatory bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner himself

has disclosed in paragraph-8 of the present anticipatory bail

application that he was acquitted in G(F) Case No. 540 of 2012 and

G(F) Case no. 242 of 2013 in the year 2021 and 2022 respectively

whereas A.B.A. No. 271 of 2023 preferred by him in connection with

present case i.e., Barkattha P.S. Case No. 153 of 2022, was

dismissed as withdrawn by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 09.02.2023. Moreover, on perusal of the order dated

09.02.2023 passed in A.B.A. No. 271 of 2023, it appears that there is

no mention of criminal antecedent of the petitioner in the same as

has been claimed by the petitioner in paragraph-8 of the present

anticipatory bail application. The petitioner was also not given any

liberty whatsoever to renew his prayer for anticipatory bail. Under

the said circumstance, it cannot be said that there is any such

change in circumstance after A.B.A. No. 271 of 2023 was dismissed

as withdrawn vide order dated 09.02.2023 so as to enable the

petitioner to renew his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in

connection with the same case.

4. Under the said circumstance, I am not inclined to entertain the

present anticipatory bail application and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

Ritesh/                                           (Rajesh Shankar, J.)