Balayat Hussain Warsi Alias Majan Ahmad Alias Waleyet Hussain vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, and the materials available on record. While the State argued for custodial interrogation due to alleged involvement and the need for recovery of illegal iron scrap, the Court was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petitioners were directed to surrender in court within four weeks and, upon arrest or surrender, to be enlarged on bail with specific bond and surety amounts. Conditions were imposed, including cooperation with the investigation, appearing before the investigating officer when noticed, furnishing mobile numbers and Aadhaar card copies, and undertaking not to change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case, in addition to the standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioners, Balayat Hussain Warsi and Nazir Ahmad, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 264 of 2021, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The case involves the interception of a van carrying illegal iron scraps on September 9, 2021. The petitioners allegedly failed to produce documents for the iron scrap. One petitioner identified himself as the owner of M/s Friends Steel Enterprises and provided a GST number, but could not produce an e-way bill. It is alleged that the petitioners obstructed police personnel and threatened them when the vehicle was being taken to the police station, facilitating its escape. The petitioners claim innocence, false implication, and that all necessary documents were produced, leading to the release of the iron scrap by the police. They also assert they did not obstruct public servants and are reputable individuals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of obstruction of public servants, threat to police, and facilitating the escape of a vehicle carrying alleged illegal iron scraps. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that they are innocent and falsely implicated. They claimed that all necessary documents for the iron scrap were produced, and the police released the vehicle after being satisfied. They argued that they did not obstruct public servants and that their arrest would lower their prestige. They assured cooperation with the investigation and adherence to bail conditions. State's Arguments: The State opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing that sufficient material existed to show the petitioners' involvement in the alleged offenses. The State contended that custodial interrogation was required for the recovery of illegal iron scrap and therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted.