High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 23 May 2022 · Citation: (2022) 05 JH CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kailash Prasad Deo, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention Of Illegal Mining Transportation And Storage) Rules, 2017 — Rule 13 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 379, 414 · Mines Act, 1952 — Section 30(ii) · Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 — Section 21 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 3998 Of 2022
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

10 paragraphs · 465 words

Kailash Prasad Deo, J

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Randhir Kumar assisted by learned counsel, Mrs. Pinki Kumari and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.16 of 2022, for the offence registered under Sections 379, 414 IPC, Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act, Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, Section 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention oif Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the driver of one of the seized truck bearing registration No.JH-19C-8665, which was found with 23 tones of coal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that owner of the truck has already been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on deposit of Rs.70,000/- vide order dated 24.03.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.2087/2022, as such, petitioner who is driver and he was not involved in loading the coal as he was not apprehended at the spot and petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that owner has been granted bail on deposit Rs.70,000/-, as such, petitioner may also deposit the sum amount.

Be that as it may this Court has grant to anticipatory bail or reject anticipatory bail this Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order for deposit the amount , since the owner of the vehicle has already been granted anticipatory bail and petitioner is driver was not found in this case, accordingly, petitioner (Sanjay Yadav) is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.16 of 2022 subject to the conditions, as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and also on the following conditions:-

(i) One of the bailors shall be deponent/pairvikar of the present case namely, Ravi Turi, S/o Sukra Turi, R/o Village- Kali Dumaro, P.O.- Nindra, P.S. Chandwa, District- Letehar, who has furnished photocopy of his UID Card before this Court in the bail application.

Office is directed to send photo copy of the UID Card of deponent along with this order to the court below so as to verify the authenticity of the bailor.

(ii) Another bailor shall be father/mother/son/sister/brother/wife. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.