IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                 ---
              A.B.A. No.5140 of 2013
                                 ---
 Binod Bhagat &Anr                       ....Petitioners
                       -- Versus --
 State of Jharkhand ......             Opposite Party
                                 ---
             CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Sarju Prasad. Advocate
                         .
For the State         :- A.P.P.

5/ 07.05.2014

Present application has been filed under sections 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail as the petitioners are having reasonable apprehension of their arrest in connection with Torpa P.S. Case No. 55 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No.327 of 2013 registered for the offence punishable under sections 379/411/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Under section 4(i)/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 and Section 4(1) of Mines and Mineral(Development and Regulation) Act,1957 and Under Section 21 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act) 1981 now pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the materials placed on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. The learned counsel for the petitioners by referring the order passed by the learned court below pointed out that the learned court below has taken note of the submissions made by the petitioners with regard to applicability of relevant provisions and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court that special law shall prevail over general law. Thus despite discussing prevailing position of law the learned court below did not pass orders in favour of the petitioner According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are not connected in any manner with the alleged crime. However, they have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime with a view to harass them by misusing and abusing the process of law .It is further submitted that present petitioners are law abiding citizens and are ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation of the case and shall abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this court and therefore, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that there are allegations made against the petitioners having involvement in the alleged offence and therefore, looking to the allegation made in the FIR and also considering the gravity of the offence present petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that application filed by the co-accused for getting regular bail is also rejected by the learned court below. It is also submitted that anticipatory bail filed by the co-accused persons in similar case has been rejected by this court.

Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present application and also prima facie looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation against the present petitioners in light of observation made by the learned court below while describing the prevailing legal position in view of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it has been laid down that special law will prevail over general law, this court is of the view that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioners by allowing the anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the petitioners, namely Binod Bhagat and Anil Kumar Singh, in the event of his their arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, are directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(P.P.Bhatt,J) SD