Allowed

Manisha Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Apr 2023Cr.A(DB)/396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail. Finding that there were no mining operations and no recovery of mine articles, the Court quashed the order denying bail and made an interim bail order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting anticipatory bail was quashed, the interim bail order was made absolute, and the appellants were directed to obtain provisional bail on furnishing bond of Rs.25,000 each.

Manisha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 396 of 2023

¶3

Manisha Kumari, aged about 40 years, wife of Dhananjay Singh, Resident of Village Shikaripara, PO & PS Shikaripara, District Dumka. 2. Rupnarayan Pandit, aged about 53 years, son of Guneshwar Pandit, Resident of Village Rajarampur, PO & PS Manjhauli, District Matihari, State Bihar. .... Appellants

¶4

.... Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent ---------------

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶8

For the Appellants : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP --------------- Order No. 04/ Dated: 19th April 2023

¶9

The instant appeal under section 21(4) of the NIA (National Investigation Agency) Act, 2008 has been directed against the order dated 22.2.2023 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in A.B.P. No. 71 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the prayer of anticipatory bail of the appellants in connection with Shikaripara PS Case No. 146 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.65 of 2023 registered under sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4/54 of JMMC Rules, 2004, Section 4/21 of MMDR Act, 1957, section 9 (B) of Explosive Act, 1884 and section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act has been rejected.

¶10

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants while arguing the matter on 29^th March 2023 has advanced his argument about the false implication of both the appellants on the ground that the appellant no. 1 is the lessee whereas appellant no.2 is the operator of the Hydraulic Excavator, the machine in question. The further argument advanced that there was no mining operation in the leased area since there is no seizure of any chips etc.

¶11

This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the

¶12

2 Cr. App. (DB) No.396 of 2023

¶13

appellants and with regard to peruse the case diary has adjourned the matter to be listed on 13^th April 2023. The counter-affidavit has been filed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted by referring to the paragraphs of the case diary wherein the argument which has been advanced that is no mining operation, since, there is no seizure of any chips etc. and further the appellant no.1 is the lessee, but, due to want in search of clearance from the statutory body the mining operation was not to be conducted the aforesaid facts have not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. It has also been submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the appellants.

¶14

Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Jharkhand has although defended the order passed by the learned court below but, on the basis of the averment raised in the counter-affidavit is not raised any dispute to the fact that there was no mining operation, since, there is no seizure to the effect the recovery of mine articles from the place where from the vehicle has been said to have been seized.

¶15

Considering the same, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 22.2.2023 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in A.B.P. No. 71 of 2023 requires interference. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.2.2023 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in A.B.P. No. 71 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. In consequence thereof, the interim order of grant of provisional bail vide order dated 29^th March 2023 is passed is required to be made absolute.

¶16

Accordingly, the order passed by this Court on 29^th March 2023 by which the appellants are directed to be released on provisional bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000 (Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in connection with Shikaripara PS Case No. 146 of 2022 and G.R. No. 65 of 2023, with the condition as stipulated under section 438 (2) of the

¶17

3 Cr. App. (DB) No.396 of 2023

¶18

Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby made absolute.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶20

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶21

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶22

RKM

Manisha Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Kumari 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

Kaushila Kumari Alias Kaushila Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nathuni Singh Alias Nathuni Ji Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand