Rahul Mahato v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, A.P.P. Order No.07/ Dated:21.12.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties. ….. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 29 of 2022 instituted under Sections 21 of MMDR Act, 1957 (Amendment Act 2015), Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 (Amendment 2019) & Rule 13(i) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rule 2017, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. As per F.I.R., there is an allegation is that petitioner was involved in manufacturing illegal bricks and establishing the plant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case.

It is submitted that petitioner has no concern with the bricks business in the area and never indulged in any business of brick kilns. It is submitted that his name has been disclosed by the local villagers during enquiry by the concerned officer. It is further submitted that since petitioner has no concern with the brick kiln, hence, he could not produce any documents before Circle Officer, who has falsely recorded his opinion that petitioner has confessed about operation of brick kiln. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that 100 raw bricks and 3 lakhs bricks have been recovered and there are ample evidence showing involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged occurrence, hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials on record, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged 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 A.C.J.M., Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 29 of 2022 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. R.K (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)