IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       A.B.A. No. 4481 of 2015
             Manik Chandra Khan @ M.C. Khan    .... Petitioner
                               Versus
             The State of Jharkhand                      ... Opposite Party
                                ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.P.P.

---

Order No. 02 Dated 27th April 2016 Heard Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.O. Case No. 21 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable u/s 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and Section 37,38 and 39 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as also Section 41f and 43 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never posted as Project Officer, Lohapatti Sand Ghat, rather the petitioner was posted as Project Officer, Lohapatti Colliery and in support of his contention, learned counsel referred to the office order dated 21.8.2010. It has further been submitted that the sand extraction never crossed its limit and in compliance of letter datede13.12.2013, the mining activity of Lohapatti Sand Ghat Project of M/s. BCCL was stopped.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

Regard being had to the above, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.O. Case No. 21 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4490 of 2015 Krishna Narayan Tiwary @ Krishna Narayan Tiwari.... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

---

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P.

---

Order No. 04 Dated 27th April 2016 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 121 of 2014 (G.R. Case No. 1407 of 2014), registered for the offences punishable u/s 376,313,493 and 420 I.P.C.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the informant used to work in the house of the petitioner as maid- servant and since there was some dispute with respect to sell and purchase of land a case was instituted by the wife of the petitioner against informant. It has also been submitted that in the complaint petition itself it has been mentioned about the intimacy which had developed about 7-8 years ago when the informant had gone to the State Bank India, Ramgarh Branch for agriculture loan, where the petitioner was working as Cashier, who asked the informant to come on the next day. It has also been submitted that thereafter the informant always used to visit the bank and meet with the petitioner and therefore it would be improbable that the informant would not be knowing about the marital status of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is a physical disabled person having 60% disability.

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and referring to Paragraph-4, 6 and 18 of the case diary has submitted that some of the witnesses have stated that they were knowing that the informant is the wife of the petitioner.

Apart from inordinate delay in lodging the present case by the informant, the wife of the petitioner had also instituted a case against the informant prior to institution of the present case and therefore institution of the subsequent case by the informant can be said to be with malicious intent and by way of retaliation.