Biru Mehta Alias Biru Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.348 of 2023 by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Koderma, in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected.

¶14

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that initially a report was submitted by Forest Area Officer, Forest Area, Chitarpur leveling therein the allegation of illegal stone mining and its transportation with the use of Poclain, JCB, Hywa, compressor-cumDrill Machine, etc. and the same has been treated as prosecution report by competent authority of criminal jurisdiction i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned District and converted into a complaint case being Complaint Case No.660 of 2020.

¶15

3. It has been contended that FIR has also been instituted being

¶16

¶17

Koderma P.S. Case No.113 of 2020 for the same set of allegation in which the appellants have been released on bail by virtue of the order passed by this Court in B.A. No.11732 of 2020 and B.A. No.2564 of 2021.

¶18

4. The contention has been made that for the same set of allegation, the appellants are facing two prosecutions. However, so far as the fact of the present case is concerned, no material has been recovered said to attract the penal offence both under the Forest Act and the Indian Penal Code and further, there is no recovery of any explosive substance said to attract the penal offence under Section 3(a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶19

5. It has been contended that on the identical footing, one coaccused person, namely, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Mehta has been allowed the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1378 of 2023 on 17.01.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that herein also, the appellants may be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by interfering with the order impugned.

¶20

7. While on the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing for the State-respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that after the prosecution report, the involvement of the appellants/petitioners is serious.

¶21

8. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that one of the

¶22

¶23

identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Mehta has been allowed the privilege of pre-arrest bail passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1378 of 2023 on 17.01.2024 whose name reflects at serial no.17 and the names of the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 appear at serial no.6 and serial no.22 respectively.

¶24

9. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the case of both the appellants herein is identically placed to that of co-accused person, namely, Pawan Kumar @ Pawan Mehta who has been granted benefit of privilege of pre-arrest bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1378 of 2023 on 17.01.2024 and hence, the similar relief is also to be granted to the appellants on the principle of parity and as such, the same is to be followed. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in A.B.P. No.348 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶25

12. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the appellants. The appellants, above named, accordingly, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within 15 days and on their surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the

¶26

¶27

Code of Criminal Procedure with further condition that the appellants shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial, be not hindered and further that one of the bailors should be close relative of the appellants, which is to be accompanied by affidavit justifying that such bailor is close relative of the appellants.

¶28

13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stand disposed of

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶31

Rohit/-

Biru Mehta Alias Biru Kumar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biru Mehta Alias Biru Kumar Mehta 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

The State of Jharkhand Vs Mr Man Mohan Prasad

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs Ms Gahna

Priti Kumari Sinha Alias Prity Kumari Sinha Vs Sudhir Kumar Sinha

Dr Rabindra Kumar Singh Alias Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Anr.

Ajay Turi Vs Union of India through National Investigation Agency