Dineshwar Saw vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Dineshwar Saw, a scrap dealer and owner of M/s Dineshwar Saw with a GST number, is apprehending arrest in Telaiya P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025. The case is registered under sections 303(2), 317(2), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner claims to have sold the seized iron scrap to M/s Tushyam Mattel Pvt. Limited and asserts that the scrap was not stolen property. He also states he has no criminal antecedent. The State's counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, noting that the petitioner sold the iron scrap.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's status as a scrap dealer, the fact that he sold the iron scrap to M/s Tushyam Mattel Pvt. Limited, and crucially, his lack of criminal antecedents as disclosed in paragraph 10 of the petition. The Court found these factors sufficient to incline it towards granting the privilege of anticipatory bail. The operative direction was for the petitioner to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from the date of the order. Upon surrender or arrest, he is to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Koderma, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 240 of 2025, registered under sections 303(2), 317(2), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he is a legitimate scrap dealer who sold the seized iron scrap to a private limited company. He emphasizes that the seized material is not stolen property and that he possesses no prior criminal record. These factors, he argues, warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, primarily based on the fact that the petitioner sold the iron scrap, implying potential involvement in the alleged offense.