Raju Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 32 of 2023

Raju Agrawal ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 08/Dated: 12^th March, 2024

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022, instituted under Sections 379, 414 / 34 of the I.P.C., Sections 4/21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957, Rule 9/13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2017, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per the F.I.R., the allegation is that petitioner along with other co-accused is partner of M/s Triveni Fuels. It is alleged that during course of inspection of the Coal Refinery (hard coke kiln) of the petitioner, which is found to be operational at the place of occurrence, but no partners were present and one munshi Hanuman Singh told that 187 tons of hard coke and 71 tons of coal are lying at the site and also revealed that the present petitioner and other partner operate the said kiln by purchasing coals from Dhanbad and Hazaribagh. Upon demand, no E-challan for the purchase / transportation related documents were produced. It is alleged that the documents provided by the Munshi was compared on JIMMS Portal, wherein several discrepancies were detected in the entries, which shows that the kiln operators were furnishing wrong monthly returns and thus, violated the conditions of dealers’ registration. There were discrepancies in the other documents produced by the said Munshi Hanuman Singh. Coal present at the site were seized and handed over to the Munshi Hanuman Singh on Jimmanama and notices were also issued to Kiln Operators for furnishing E-challan and other documents of the case, but despite lapse of the period granted to them, they did

¶7

-2-

¶8

not furnish any said documents and hence, this case has been lodged, showing that around 1769.63 tons of coal worth Rs. 1,99,90,805/- was illegally purchased / transported, without any valid E-Challan by the owner of the said M/s Triveni Fuels

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of assumption and presumption by the Mining Officials. Petitioner is bonafide and legal partner of M/s Triveni Fuels and he has also explained everything through its affidavit dated 16.12.2021 to the Mining Officer and also appeared before the Investigating Officer and cooperating in investigation. Thereafter, charge sheet has been submitted in this case. Petitioner is also involved in other case i.e. Piparwar P.S. Case No. 35/2016 under Sections 407/34 of the I.P.C., in which petitioner is on bail, except this case, petitioner has no other criminal antecedent. The petitioner has also submitted all necessary documents before the Investigating Officer, but during entire investigation, no documents produced by the petitioner has been verified and opined to be fake documents. Other co-accused namely, Satish Kumar, who is also partner of the M/s Triveni Fuels with similar allegation, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court very recently vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 10865 of 2022. The case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in trial of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶11

It appears that the allegation against the petitioner is similar to that of other co-accused Satish Kumar, who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court even after submission of the charge sheet in the case and except one criminal antecedent of the petitioner, there is absolutely parity in the matter of allegation and materials.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on

¶13

-3-

¶14

record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2022 with the condition that he will cooperate in trail and shall furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his 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.

¶15

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Sunil/

Raju Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Agarwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikandar Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Riyaz Hussain Siddiqui Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Assistant Manager Legal Mohammad Imran Vs Sabahat Naz

Vishal Ranjan Vs Arun Kumar Singh

Central Coalfields Limited through Its General Manager Personnel Admn Mr Gopal Prasad Vs Mohan Ganjhu and Ors.