SURAJ PRASAD ALIAS SURAJ KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./5216/2025 · 2025-09-10
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24181 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24181 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:27483
--1-- A.B.A. No. 5216 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 5216 of 2025
---- Suraj Prasad @ Suraj Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Sri Munna Lal Prasad, resident of village – Kalhabad, PO and PS – Barkatha, District - Hazaribagh
.... Petitioner -- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State
:- Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
---- 04/10.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.94 of 2024 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the false allegations are made of stealing of tractor in question. He submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.13 of the petition. He further submits that the person who has been arrested in another case has taken the name of the petitioner and on confessional statement the name of the petitioner has come in the FIR.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer
2025:JHHC:27483
--2-- A.B.A. No. 5216 of 2025
and submits that the allegations are there against the petitioner being accomplice of apprehended accused.
5. Looking into the contents of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner has received the notice under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and it has been pointed out that the petitioner is working as a driver in Mumbai employed by OLA App and reply was given by post, however, since the petitioner has not appeared in that view of the matter the learned Court has been pleased to reject the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, as such the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks and the learned Court shall release the petitioner on such terms and conditions or the sureties as the learned Court may deem fit and proper.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/