IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        A.B.A. No. 3663 of 2015

                     Md. Umar
                     Son of late Md. Nasum, resident of Naisarai, Patna City, Patna (Bihar)
                                                                    ...      Petitioner(s)
                                         -V e r s u s-
                     State of Jharkhand                             ...    Opposite Party

                             CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

                     For the Petitioner(s)         : - Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
                     For the State                 : - Addl.P.P.


03/26.11.2015

Apprehending his arrest, the sole petitioner Md. Umar has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case no. 74 of 2015, instituted under Sections 379/120(B)/411 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 30(II) of Mines and Minerals Nationalization Act, 1976, Section 33 of Indian Forest Act , Section 4/21 of M.M.(D.R.)Act, 1957, Section 21/31A of the Air (Prevention & Control) Pollution Act, 1981 and Section 7 of Factories Act, 1948.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the seized truck on which the soft coal was alleged to have been found loaded. It was also submitted that after institution of this case, a petition for release of coal was filed in the court concerned whereafter a report was called for from the concerned Investigating Officer, who submitted the report and from the report, it would appear that the documents relating to purchase of coal was found to be genuine and valid. It was also submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with the seized coal rather the same belongs to the owner of the factory, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of this petitioner stands on better footing. Hence, the petitioner also deserves the grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel representing the State though opposed the prayer but fairly submitted that the owner of the factory has been granted anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels, the allegation and the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender in the court below within two weeks from today and in the event of his arrest/surrender, the court below is directed to enlarge him on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case no. 74 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 640 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ritesh                                                                          (R. N. Verma, J.)