Allowed

Manish Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2020A.B.A./4527/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkland granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a case concerning illegal mining. The court relied on a coordinate bench order where a similarly situated truck owner was granted bail with cash security and other conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon deposit of cash security of Rs. 20,000 and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Manish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 4527 of 2020

¶3

Manish Kumar ….........Petitioner Vrs. The State of Jharkhand ….......... Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.P.P.

¶5

02 /03.10.2020 Learned counsel Mr. Ritesh Kumar for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. are present through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defect no. 9(i), which is only a typographical error in the name of the Hotel in para 4 of the petition, may be ignored.

¶6

Accordingly, it is ignored.

¶7

Petitioner seeks the protection of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 231 of 2020 for the offence registered under Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004 and Section 7/13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 4 vehicles were seized by the District Task Force, allegedly transporting illegally mined sand. It is alleged that petitioner’s Hywa truck bearing registration no. NL 02L-9064 was seized with 300 CFT of sand. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner being the owner was totally unaware of this activity being carried out by the driver for certain extra income. In similar circumstances one Uday Kumar Bhagat, owner of another Hywa truck bearing registration no. JH-07J-6343 seized with 250 CFT of sand, named at serial no.3 of the seizure list, has been granted the protection of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 4480 of 2020 vide order dated 01.10.2020 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary with the condition to deposit cash security of Rs.20,000/- along with other conditions. Therefore, petitioner, who is innocent owner of the Hywa may be granted the protection of anticipatory bail from unwarranted arrest.

¶9

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner is admittedly the owner of one of the 4 vehicles seized for transportation of illegally mined sand by the District Mining Officials. Therefore, he may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Having considered the facts and circumstances noted above and the fact that similarly situated co-accused Uday Kumar Bhagat, whose Hywa truck was also seized for carrying illegally mined sand of 250 CFT, has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 4480 of 2020 with certain conditions, I am also inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the same conditions as imposed in A.B.A. No. 4480 of 2020.

¶11

Accordingly, petitioner, above named, in the event of his surrender or arrest within in a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order, shall be enlarged on bail on depositing cash security of Rs.20,000/- and furnishing bail bond of Rs.25, 000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. No. 231 of 2020, subject to the condition that petitioner will co-operate with the investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during pendency of the case along with the other conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶12

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶13

A.Mohanty

Manish Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surdhania Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Minakshi Hembrom Vs Rahul Kumar Ranjan

M S Ajmani Infrastructure and Projects P Ltd. through Its Director Kunal Ajmani Vs Smt Vandana Dadel Now Smt Pooja Singhal Secretary Art Culture and Sports Development

Sakaldeo Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Yadav Alias Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand