Dismissed

Arvind Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jun 2021MCRC/2119/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected a bail application filed by Arvind Pradhan, who was arrested for possession of 221 diamonds. The court noted the accused failed to explain the seizure and cited reports confirming the stones were natural diamonds from a restricted mining area, deeming the trafficking of national property an unfit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC rejected; accused shall remain in custody.

Arvind Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 2119 of 2021

¶5

Order Reserved on : 31.05.2021

¶6

Order Delivered on : 07.06.2021

¶7

Arvind Pradhan, S/o Dhanurjaya Pradhan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village-Chikhli, P.S.- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Chhura, DistrictGariyaband (C.G.)

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Mohammad Afroj Athar, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

CAV ORDER

¶15

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 02.02.2021 in connection with Crime No. 25/2021, registered at Police Station- Chhura, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 4, 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “the Act, 1957”).

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was carrying 221 pieces of diamond without any authorization. The

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

facts reflected from the case diary, is that on information received from informant that the applicant, who was coming from Bagbahara Tuhlu and going to Mongra Charouda, is carrying diamond without any authorization. The said diamond were theft from Paylikhand, which is restricted mining area. The applicant was enquired and asked to submit the valid document for transporting the said diamond, when he was unable to explain the same, he was arrested on 02.02.2021 and on search, 221 pieces diamond were found, therefore, the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 4, 21 of the Act, 1957 was registered against the applicant.

¶19

Before examining the case, it is necessary for this Court to go through with the relevant provision of the Act, 1957. Section 4 of the Act, 1957 provides about prospecting or mining operations to be carried out under licence or lease, which is produced as under:-

¶20

“ 4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease. — (1) [No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder]:

¶21

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement:”

¶24

Section 21 of the Act, 1957 deals with the penalties for committing violation of the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (1A) of Section 4, which shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine, which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the diamond, which has been seized from possession of the applicant, is purchased from Sri Ranganatha Enterprises and copy of tax invoice dated 24.01.2021 is also enclosed. To substantiate his stand, it is submitted that the seized diamonds are not Indian diamonds but are very cheap South African diamonds. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitting that there is clear allegation against the applicant regarding commission of offence. Hence, the application for grant of bail may be rejected.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶28

The applicant was prosecuted for committing offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 4, 21 of the Act, 1957. From

¶29

Page 4 of 4

¶30

perusal of the case diary, it is apparent that the applicant has not given explanation when the seizure was made. The prosecution has also obtained report of Director, Geology and Mining, Raipur dated 14.02.2021, which clearly pointed out that it is “Khanij Heera” and thermal conductivity test was also found positive. The case diary further indicates that in village- Payalikhand, there is possibility of diamond in the mines and there is report of theft. As such, the Government has provided additional security to that place. The advisory committee constituted from Mining Development Fund also recommended for providing security to that place. The minerals belong to the nation, it is nation's property and its trafficking is not an ordinary offence, therefore, it is not a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶32

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶33

Arun

Arvind Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yamuna Garg Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Krishnakant Shrivas @ Sanju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh