Allowed

Raj Kumar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2021A.B.A./6363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges under the Mines and Mineral Act for alleged illegal mining operations, directing surrender within six weeks with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted directed to surrender within six weeks on depositing Rs.10,000 cash security and furnishing Rs.25,000 bail bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Raj Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6363 of 2021

¶2

------

¶3

Raj Kumar Mehta

¶4

Gallu Pd. Mehta

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶7

-----CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P

¶9

Order No.02 Dated- 09.09.2021

¶10

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

¶12

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶13

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.191 of 2020 instituted under Section 4 (1-A) of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 3/7/9/13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in illegal storage of stones without any license and running of crusher illegally. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-5 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned Spl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail

¶17

to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.191 of 2020 with the condition that they will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Animesh/

Raj Kumar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Mehta 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

Champa Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhey Shyam Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Bureau

Jainath Ram Alias Jainath Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ganeshwari Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kanaklata Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand