Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
The Factories Act, 1948
Section 438(2) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

User Queries

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Sahu Alias Prakash Gupta ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 April, 2014
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         A.B.A. No. 4575 of 2013

           1. Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Gupta
           2. Anand Sahu                   ...    ....Petitioners
                              Vs.
           The State of Jharkhand ....Opposite Party

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR

           For the Petitioners:       Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
           For the State:             Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty , APP

5/29.04.2014

: Anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners Prakash Sahu @ Prakash Gupta and Anand Sahu is moved by Sri B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate and opposed by Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned Additional P.P.

It is alleged that the petitioners were running a crusher machine in violation of Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and various provisions of Factories Act. The main allegation against the petitioners that they were running the crusher machine without taking licence and N.O.C. from the Pollution Control Board. It is submitted that under the law, petitioners required to take NOC from the Pollution Control Board from the year 2008 and in the year 2008 itself, petitioners applied for the NOC but still the matter is pending. Another allegation against the petitioners that their crusher machine situates in the close proximity of a school, which may cause pollution hazard to the students, but it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the crusher machine of petitioners were running since 2005, whereas the school, came into existence in the year 2013. Thus, at the time of establishment of the crusher machine, there was no school. Hence, petitioners have not violated any provision of the Factories Act. The aforesaid statement admitted by the State in its supplementary counter affidavit filed today.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I allow this application and direct the petitioners to surrender in the court below by 13.05.2014 and in that event the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate,1 st Class, Seraikella in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 57 of 2013 ( G.R. No. 797 of 2013) , subject to the condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-