Jaya Roy, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 413/414 and 120B I.P.C.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and he has no concern with the iron scrap or with the vehicle seized in this case. He has further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also contended that there is no theft report in this case. It is further contended that one co -accused, namely, Jagdam Singh, who is named in the F.I.R, has been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court. Mr. R. Mukhopadhaya, S.C.II who is appearing in this case on behalf of the State has pointed out that the prayer for anticipatory bail of a number of co -accused has already been rejected by this Court i.e. Hafiz @ Hafiz Ansari in A.B.A. No. 3475/2011; Raju Singh in A.B.A. No. 3517/2011; Subhash Singh in A.B.A. No. 3565/2011; Santose Singh in A.B.A. No. 3643/2011; Bijay Mahto in A.B.A. No. 3690/2011 and Shyam Kewat in A.B.A. No. 3708/2011. He has further pointed out that the name of the present petitioner though not mentioned in the F.I.R but it has come in the investigation that he is also one of the member of the Tiger Mobile and is involved in the business of stolen iron scrap from Bokaro Steel Plant and sending the same to outside the State. He has also pointed out that after verification, the authority concerned of the Bokaro Steel Plant has submitted a report to the investigating agency that the said stolen iron scraps belong to the Bokaro Steel Plant.
(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by both the parties and also considering the fact that there is sufficient material against the petitioner that he is also involved in the commission of offence and further the prayer for anticipatory bail of a number of co -accused, standing on the similar footing, has already been rejected by this Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.;