Rudal Kumar Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJESH SHANKAR
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 61, 281, 291, 303(2), 317(2), 325
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 s. 11(1)(d)
- Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 ss. 3, 4, 12
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having heard learned counsel the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within three…
Judgment
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : : For the State Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. ----- Order No.03 Date: 11.11.2024
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.183 of 2024 registered under Sections 3(5)/61/281/291/303(2)/317(2)/325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 3/4/12 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 are the drivers of Mahindra Bolero pickup vans bearing registration nos.BR-03GB-6274, BR-03GB-6034 & JH-10CR-6119 respectively, whereas the petitioner no.4 is the owner-cum-driver of Mahindra Bolero pickup van bearing registration no.JH-10BA-4716. As per the allegation, 35 bovine animals were found loaded in the said vehicles out of which two were found dead. It is further submitted that the said bovine animals were not being transported for slaughter purpose. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no.10 of the present anticipatory bail application. They, however, undertake to co-operate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioners’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned counsel the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.183 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Arpit/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.) -2- A.B.A. No.7038 of 2024
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.