Allowed

Birendra Kumar Alias Sonu Yadav Alias Birendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2021A.B.A./1580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of running illegal mica mines under the Indian Forest Act, requiring joint deposit of Rs.60,000 with the Divisional Forest Officer and bail bonds with sureties upon arrest or surrender within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail: upon arrest/surrender within four months, release on bail after joint deposit of Rs.60,000 with DFO and furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties.

Birendra Kumar Alias Sonu Yadav Alias Birendra… — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1580 of 2021

¶2

Birendra Kumar @ Sonu Yadav @ Birendra Yadav

¶3

Mahendra Yadav @ Birendra Yadav

¶4

Upendra Vishwakarma

¶5

Kuldeep Yadav … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.

¶11

------

¶12

Order No.02 Dated- 16.09.2021

¶13

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶14

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.479 of 2020 registered under sections 33 (i) (A) (C) of the Indian Forest Act.

¶15

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that during a raid conducted to check the operation of illegal Mica Mines within the protected forest area 102 pieces detonator and two pieces Gelatin detonator along with other articles were recovered and the allegation against the petitioners is that they were running illegal mines within the forest area. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have no concerned with the seized explosive substance. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to jointly deposit Rs.60,000/- with the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih without prejudice to their defence in this case, subject to final decision of the case and undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four months from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on showing the proof of jointly depositing Rs.60,000/- with the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih without prejudice to their defence in this case, subject to final decision of this case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Giridih, in connection with Complaint Case No.479 of 2020 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the trial of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶18

At the time of conclusion of the trial, the trial court will pass appropriate orders regarding the amount, if any, jointly deposited by the petitioners with the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih in connection with this case.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

Sonu/Gunjan-

Birendra Kumar Alias Sonu Yadav Alias Birendra Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Kumar Alias Sonu Yadav Alias Birendra Yadav 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

Naren Tiriya Alias Narayan Tiriya Alias Naren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prashant Bajpai Vs Union of India through CBI

Sonu Ravi Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amarnath Jaiswal Alias Amar Nath Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anand Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand