Salman Ansari @ Md. Salman v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 414
- Indian Forest Act ss. 33, 41, 42
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, S.P.P. -------- For the Petitioner For the State 04/02.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned S.P.P. for the State. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant with prayer to release on bail in connection with Penk Narayanpur P.S. Case No.14 of 2018 registered under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41, 42 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against the owner and driver of the four tractors and the owner of the aara machine with the allegations that the illegal wood were being transported by the tractors. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the 10 logs of sakua tree which were being transported by the tractor of the applicant at the instance of Sultan Ansari who has already been granted anticipatory bail by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.9123 of 2019. The applicant was simply the driver of the tractor and has been languishing in jail since 30th July, 2022. Learned S.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. In view of the submissions made and materials on record, the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in aforesaid case. Rohit (Subhash Chand, J.)
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.