Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 8 docs - [View All]
Section 37 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 21 in The Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
Section 4 in The Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988

advertisement

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
Jalaluddin Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
          IN       THE      HIGH   COURT         OF    JHARKHAND      AT RANCHI
                                 A. B. A. No. 522 of 2014
          Jalaluddin Khan                               ...... ...   Petitioner
                                      Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                           ..... ...   Opposite Party
                                   --------
                 CORAM       :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
                                   ------
          For the Petitioner       :        Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
          For the State            :        A.P.P.
                                       ------

8/ 06.01.2015

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jeraikela P.S. Case No. 8 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 379 of 2013, for the alleged offences under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 21 of the Mines Mineral Development (Regulation) Act and Section 37 of the Air Pollution Act.

Police case was instituted on the basis of the FIR filed by the Block Development Officer, Manoharpur, but so far as this petitioner is concerned, it is apparent from the FIR that offence is made out only under the MMDR Act and Air Pollution Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and for the offence under these Acts, the prosecution has to be launched on the basis of complaint. Learned counsel has accordingly prayed for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, Jalaluddin Khan. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of his surrender / arrest, the petitioner, named above, 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 Sri M.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa, or his successor, in connection with Jeraikela P.S. Case No. 8 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 379 of 2013, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.