Allowed

Sunil Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Aug 2023A.B.A./100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In A.B.A. No. 100 of 2023, the Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sunil Mahto in a case involving allegations of illegal mining (Section 414 IPC, Mines and Minerals Act). The court directed surrender within two weeks and release on bail upon furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; release on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties.

Sunil Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 100 of 2023

¶2

Sunil Mahto … … Petitioner

¶3

Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party

¶4

¶5

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner : Ms. Haripriya Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ----

¶8

10/04.08.2023

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhurwa (Tupudana O.P) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2022, for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Rules 04/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and Rules 7/9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶11

On 08.12.2022 at about 6:30 PM, Mining Inspector, Ranchi on the basis of confidential information raided several places and seized illegal stone chips and sand. As far as petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that about 1000 cft of illegal sand was stored on his land.

¶12

Ms. Haripriya Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the land from where the sand was seized. It was further submitted that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and this fact has been mentioned at paragraph-14 of the anticipatory bail application. Supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record, the fact that the petitioner has complied with the notice issued under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

It appears that co-accused persons have been granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court vide A.B.A. No.95 of 2023.

¶14

Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for Anticipatory Bail.

¶15

Regard being had to the facts and circumstance of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. He is directed to surrender before the court below within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and learned court below on his surrender shall release him on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Dhurwa (Tupudana O.P) P.S. Case No. 336 of 2022. Subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶16

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶17

Jay/-

Sunil Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Mahto 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

Kawish Adman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Chandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Catholic Diocess Dudhani Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sunita Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lalji Ahir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhanwaaj Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand