Harsh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Outcome
Bail granted
the case, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed
Provisions considered
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 s. 7
- Fertilizer Control Act, 1985 ss. 28(1)(a), 35(1)(a)(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
Operative part
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : For the Opposite Party : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR Mr. O.P. Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ORAL ORDER 3 20-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.171 of 2020 registered for offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 28 (1) (a) and 35(1) (a) (b) of the Fertilizer Control Act, 1985. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is AGM in BISCOMAUN and he is not expected to involve in such a trivial matter and the matter is still under investigation and charge sheet has not been submitted. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in investigation and he will join the investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17302 of 2021(3) dt.20-01-2022 the case, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. Accordingly, let petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within ten weeks from today, 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 learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.171 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to join with the Investigating Officer in investigation. BT/- U T (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the case, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 7; Fertilizer Control Act, 1985 — ss. 28(1)(a), 35(1)(a)(b); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.