PANKAJ KUMAR SONI ALIAS PANKAJ KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./5172/2025 · 2025-09-09
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23944 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23944 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:27321 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ABA No.5172 of 2025
Pankaj Kumar Soni @ Pankaj Kumar Verma, aged about 27 years, S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Jaridih Bazar, P.O. & P.S. – Gadhi Nagar, district – Bokaro (Jharkhand)
…. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
… Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------ For the Petitioner : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarawal, Spl. P.P. ------
2/09.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.08 of 2024, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 272, 273, 290, 414,34 of IPC and Section 47(a) of Excise Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and false allegation has been made against the petitioner. In view of that, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be granted.
4.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that huge quantity of liquor has illegally been loaded in the vehicle in question and this petitioner has driven the vehicle for certain kilometers and thereafter the vehicle was handed over to the apprehended driver. In view of that, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
2025:JHHC:27321 2
5. In view of the above and considering that the allegation against the petitioner is there and he has driven the vehicle in question for certain kilometers and thereafter handed over to the apprehend driver, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is accordingly rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar