Allowed

Hariom Sao Alias Hariom Saw v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Aug 2024A.B.A./5252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by owner-cum-driver of a JCB allegedly found excavating Moram; petitioner claimed false implication, no criminal antecedent, and cooperation with investigation. Court enlarged him on anticipatory bail on bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties subject to BNSS Section 482(2) conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail on Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.

Hariom Sao Alias Hariom Saw Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5252 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Hariom Sao @ Hariom Saw .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. ----- Order No.02 Date: 19.08.2024

¶10

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Markacho P.S. Case No.61 of 2024 registered under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 and Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle (JCB) bearing chassis no.HAR3DXS4T03119424, engine no.H00327304 which was allegedly found excavating “Moram” from a place situated at Mouza Dasharokala within Markacho Circle as well as 500 CFT of

¶12

“Moram” was also found stored at the said place. It is further submitted that 500 CFT of “Moram” was dumped by a contractor for repairing the road and the said vehicle of the petitioner was merely lying beside the road which was apprehended by Circle Officer, Markacho due to suspicion. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no.16 of the

¶13

present anticipatory bail application. He also undertakes to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Koderma in connection with Markacho P.S. Case No.61 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶16

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶17

Arpit/

¶18

-2-

¶19

A.B.A. No.5252 of 2024

Hariom Sao Alias Hariom Saw v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom Sao Alias Hariom Saw v. 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

Jobar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harish Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamdeo Mahtha Alias Kamdev Pasi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkapur Kumar Alias Rajkapur Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand