High CourtsSingle Bench

Dilip Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 1 October 2020 · Citation: (2020) 10 JH CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Mines And minerals (Development & Regulation ) Act, 1957 — Section 4, 21 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.B. A. No. 4488 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 413 words

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Patratu P.S. case no. 104 of 2020 registered under Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017, Rule 54 of JMMC Rue, 2004 and section 4 and 21 of Mines and minerals (Development & Regulation ) Act, 1957 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the he is the owner of a dumper and the allegations against the petitioner that his vehicle was seized by police for transporting the illegally excavated sand are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about the said article being carried in his vehicle. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and is also ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 40,000/- and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Ramgarh in connection with Patratu P.S. case no. 104 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.