Allowed

Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2016A.B.A./250/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail, the High Court allowed the petition holding that the District Mining Officer lacks competence to institute an FIR under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, thereby striking the foundation of the case, and directed the petitioner to surrender within three weeks for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed anticipatory bail to surrender within three weeks and be enlarged on furnishing bail bond with two sureties under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 250 of 2016

¶3

Raj Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Dinanath Singh, Proprietor of M/s Gopi Minerals of Bara Jamda, Resident of Govind Tower Apartment at and P.O. P.S. Barbil, District-Keonjhar, Orissa.

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand. … Opposite Party

¶7

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : APP --------

¶9

06/11-04-2016 Heard the parties.

¶10

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gua (Barajamda) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 322 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 414/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 3/8/9 of Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005, Rule 6 of Jharkhand Minimal Dealer’s Rules 2007 and Section 4/21 of MMDR Act, 1957.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa was precluded from instituting an FIR as in terms of Section 22 of the MMDR Act, as only a complaint case can be instituted. It has been submitted that Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005 and Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rule, 2007 have been framed under the provisions of MMDR Act and in such circumstances, therefore, the very foundation of the case gets demolished. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was having a Mineral Dealer’s Licence issued by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa valid from 10.07.2010 to 15.08.2012 of M/s Gopi Minerals, which was purchased by the petitioner from erstwhile owner Shri Basant Kumar Poddar. Learned counsel submits that the transportation of the fines were validly made and extraction of the same was also as per law and in such circumstances, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that dealer’s licence with respect to M/s Gopi Minerals had already expired on 15.08.2012. It has been submitted that petitioner has been made an accused under section 414 of the

¶13

-2-

¶14

Indian Penal Code apart from various provisions of Jharkhand Minimal Dealer’s Rules 2007, MMDR Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Mineral Transit Rules, 2005.

¶15

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to institution of FIR by the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, who is not competent to institute an FIR in view of specific bar under section 22 of the MMDR Act and the same since strikes on the foundation of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of three weeks from today and pray for regular bail, and in that event, he will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Chaibasa, in connection with Gua (Barajamda) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 322 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶18

Rakesh/

Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

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

Gautam Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Barnwal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Devendra Marandi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Somay Soren And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Matiur Rahman Vs The State Of Jharkhand