High CourtsSingle Bench

Raju Singh @ Raj Kishore Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 9 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 JH CK 0094

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 21 · Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession) Rules, 2004 — Rule 54 · Jharkhand Mineral Sellers Rule, 2007 — Rule 8 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 947 Of 2021
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

9 paragraphs · 386 words

It appears that surviving defect no. 9(i) & (iii) have been removed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that defect no. 9(ii) may be ignored.

Upon consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ignored.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

3.

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C in connection with Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No. 75/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1520/2016 for the offence under Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, 1957, section 54 of J.M.M.C Rule, 2004 and section 8 of Jharkhand Mineral Sellers Rule, 2007 and pending before the court of Miss N.R. Lakra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that general and omnibus allegation has been made against 46 persons of indulging in illegal stone mining. It is submitted that other co-accused persons namely, Vinay Mehta @ Vinay Kumar Mehta in A.B.A. No. 7577/2018 vide order dated 29.11.2018 and Vicky Kumar @ Vicky, Dilip Kumar, Ajay Prasad Mehta @ Ajay Mehta and Anil Kumar Mehta in A.B.A. No. 1183/2019 vide order dated 11.03.2019 have been granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court. Petitioner is not claiming stone chips which is allegedly seized by the concerned officer. Therefore, he may be protected from unnecessary arrest.

5.

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer.

6.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances above and that other similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petitioner above named, in the event of his surrender or arrest within a period of four weeks, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Miss N.R. Lakra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No. 75/2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 1520/2016, subject to deposit of cash security of Rs. 10,000/- in the court below and other conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

Petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation. Petitioner and his bailors shall not change their address or mobile number without permission of the trial court.