RAHUL YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsels.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR rather he has been falsely implicated in this case due to the reason that the petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the tractor. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was not arrested on the spot and he is a poor farmer. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application and has submitted that the petitioner may be a poor farmer but he is the owner of the tractor, therefore, fully liable for the allegation.