Partly allowed

Arvind Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2023A.B.A./2093/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order denies anticipatory bail to petitioners Arvind Kumar, Ghanshyam Prasad, and Krishna Mohan Prajapati charged with illegal mining. However, it directs the fourth petitioner, Varun Kumar, with no criminal record, to surrender within two weeks for immediate bail disposal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for three petitioners; surrender directed for fourth petitioner within two weeks for bail consideration.

Arvind Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 2093 of 2023

¶3

Arvind Kumar

¶4

Ghanshyam Prasad

¶5

Krishna Mohan Prajapati

¶6

Varun Kumar … … Petitioners - Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party ------

¶7

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioners : M/s. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State : M/s. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P

¶10

¶11

07/15.06.2023 Heard the Parties.

¶12

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhurwa (Hatia) P.S. Case No. 336/2022, registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 04/21 of the Mines and Minerals Development Act, 1957, Rules 04/54 of the J.M.M.C. Rules 2004, Rules 07 & 09 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and storage) Rules, 2017, pending in the Court of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned C.J.M., Ranchi.

¶13

The petitioners are owners of a crushers which was raided by the informant party on 08.12.2022. Huge quantity of a stone chips were recovered from their crushers.

¶14

It was submitted that the petitioners had valid licence for operating their crushers but after the expiry of the licence, the same was not renewed.

¶15

Learned special P.P. submitted that even after the expiry of the licence, illegal mining of stone chips continued in the crusher of the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioner no. 1, Arvind Kumar, petitioner no. 2, Ghanshyam Prasad and petitioner no. 3 Krishna Mohan Prajapati have got criminal antecedents.

¶16

Regard being had to the facts and circumstance of the case; I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory

¶17

Bail. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶18

As far as the petitioner no. 4. Varun Kumar is concerned, if so, advised he may surrender before the court below within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the learned court below on his surrender shall dispose of his bail application on the same day considering the fact that he has got no criminal antecedent.

¶19

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶20

Saurabh

Arvind Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sarwar Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Thakur And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Aryan Raj Alias Aryan Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand