Suman Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Appellants : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Ms. Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Amresh Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

¶13

¶14

Order No. 07 / Dated 18^th March, 2024

¶15

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.233 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No.41 of 2023, registered under Sections 175, 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 21(1)/21(6) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, Rule 4/54 of J.M.M.C. Rule, 2004, rule 7/9 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining) Transportation and Storage Rules and under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been rejected.

¶16

2

¶17

2. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that as per the allegation levelled against the appellants, the appellants have been made accused merely on the ground that the vehicles like Poclain, JCB Machine, Tractor and motorcycles, were recovered from the place where the illegal mining said to be operated.

¶18

3. It has been contended that the co-accused persons, who were found to be the crusher owners, have been directed to be released on pre-arrest bail as per order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1142 of 2023 [Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Tiwari], order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1162 of 2023 [Md. Samim Ansari @ Md. Samim] and vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1163 of 2023 [Lakhan Pandit].

¶19

4. Hence, submission has been made that the case of the appellants is also identically placed, rather, the case of the appellants is said to be on better footing, as such, submission has been made that it is a fit case where the appellants may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by showing interference with the impugned order.

¶20

5. While on the other hand, the fact about the implication of the appellants on the ground that they were found to be owner of the vehicles which were recovered

¶21

3

¶22

from the place where the crushers were being operated, has been admitted as per the statement made to that effect in the counter affidavit brought on record after going through the case diary.

¶23

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as well as the finding recorded in the impugned order.

¶24

7. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the Coordinate Benches have passed the order granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail in favour of co-accused persons, namely, Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Tiwari vide order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1142 of 2023, Md. Samim Ansari @ Md. Samim vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1162 of 2023 and Lakhan Pandit vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1163 of 2023, therefore, the appellants against whom the allegation is that they are owners of the vehicles which were recovered from the premises of the said crushers, there is no reason to take distinct view.

¶25

8. Accordingly order dated 21.06.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.233 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶26

4

¶27

9. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶28

10. Accordingly, the appellants, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Court within a period of four weeks and in the event of their surrender, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No.41 of 2023, subject to the conditions that the appellants shall cooperate in the investigation and shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required and in case of non-cooperation, the bail bond of the appellants shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶31

Birendra/

Suman Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Tiwari 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

Dhananjay Singh Alias Abhimanyu Jee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Began Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Wakil Alam Vs Ishrat Fatma

Adesh Ganjhu Alias Mangra Alias Aadesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Rajak Alias Murari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Advocates Association (Regd) Jharkhand High Court through Its General Secretary Navin Kumar Vs Union of India through Deptt of Financial Services