Allowed

Laljeet Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jun 2023A.B.A./2812/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered for illegal mining and transportation of mineral resources. The petitioner, not named in the FIR, was apprehended of arrest due to criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on bail permitted within three weeks if arrested or surrenders, subject to bail bond and sureties.

Laljeet Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A. B. A. No. 2812 of 2023 Laljeet Kumar Yadav. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶3

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

......... For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, APP

¶5

03/ 16.06.2023 . Apprehending his arrest, petitioner above-named has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No.14 of 2022 registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and Section 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rule, 2004.

¶6

As per the case of prosecution, the District Mining officer conducted raid in which it was found that four illegal crushers were being operated without having any valid paper and huge quantity of stone-chips were seized. The case was registered against four named accused persons.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that petitioner is not named in the FIR and nothing has been seized from him and the only material is the confessional statement of the co-accused regarding involvement in the alleged offence. It is submitted that this petitioner was a lessee of the mines earlier which was not renewed and a case was registered against him for illegal mining under Section 379 IPC and only on the basis of criminal antecedent, he has been roped in this case.

¶8

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted by name of the petitioner has come up during investigation. It is submitted that petitioner had taken the land on lease for ten years from one Kasim Mian and others for operating crusher plant.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned court below, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.

¶10

The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear on notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. as and when his presence is required.

¶11

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶12

Sandeep/uploaded.

Laljeet Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laljeet Kumar 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

MD Majud Alias Sukhal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudev Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Mistry Alias Rup Kumar Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuwaneshwar Mahatha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation Delhi

Lal Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand