Muktar Ansari Alias Mukhtar Alam vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, and the materials available on record. The Court found it inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The operative directions included the petitioner surrendering in court within four weeks, being enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, and cooperating with the investigation. The conditions stipulated were that he would appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed, furnish his mobile number and Aadhaar card photocopy with an undertaking not to change his mobile number during the pendency of the case, and adhere to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Muktar Ansari @ Mukhtar Alam, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Jamtara P.S. Case No. 76 of 2022, registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that upon receiving secret information about an illegal coal business, a raiding party found 7 tonnes of raw coal in the petitioner's brick kiln. When asked for documentation, the petitioner failed to produce valid papers. The petitioner claims the coal was purchased from Sainger Minerals Maithan, GST has been paid, he has no criminal antecedents, and he has been falsely implicated. He also stated that nothing was recovered from his personal possession and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of illegal possession of coal and the absence of valid documents, and the petitioner's submissions regarding purchase, GST payment, and lack of criminal history? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that nothing was recovered from his possession, he had purchased the coal from a named entity (Sainger Minerals Maithan), GST had already been paid for the coal, he has no prior criminal antecedents, and he has been falsely implicated. He further assured cooperation with the investigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.