Uttam Kumar Barnwal @ Uttam Kumar Barnweal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Uttam Kumar Barnwal, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 122 of 2022. The case involves offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the COTPA Act, and the Epidemic Diseases Act. The petitioner had previously filed two anticipatory bail applications before the High Court, one dismissed for default and another withdrawn with liberty to approach the lower court. The lower court rejected his subsequent petition, holding there was no fresh ground. The petitioner now claims the house where tobacco pan masala and cigarettes without GST bills were stored does not belong to him and seeks anticipatory bail. The State opposes the prayer, asserting the house belongs to the petitioner and no new grounds have been presented.

Held

The Court held that no fresh grounds were made out to entertain the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted the direct allegation against the petitioner for storing five gunny bags of tobacco pan masala and cigarettes without GST bills. It also highlighted that the tobacco pan masala was banned by the Government of Jharkhand. The Court observed that nothing new had been argued or stated as a new ground in this third anticipatory bail petition. Consequently, the Court found no basis to entertain the application and dismissed it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of storing tobacco pan masala and cigarettes without GST bills, and the fact that tobacco pan masala is banned in Jharkhand? 2. Whether the petitioner has presented any fresh grounds to warrant entertaining a third anticipatory bail application before this Court, especially after the lower court rejected his petition for lack of fresh grounds? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that there is no documentary evidence to prove the house where the goods were found belongs to him. He argues that anticipatory bail should be granted on this basis. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the prayer, submitting that the petitioner had withdrawn a previous bail application with liberty to move the learned court, and that the house where the goods were found does belong to the petitioner. The State further argues that no fresh grounds have been presented in the current petition to justify entertaining it.