Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
Section 21 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 414 in The Indian Penal Code
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 438(2) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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
Sunil Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2015
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       A.B.A. No. 3545 of 2015

Sinil Kumar Mishra                      ....                 Petitioner(s)

                                                Versus
State of Jharkhand                                   ...     Opposite Party

Coram :                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA

For the petitioner (s): Mr. Gaurav
For the opposite party : Addl.P.P.

20.11.2015

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Khunti PS case No. 137 of 2015 registered under sections 379/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, section 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 and section 4(1) of the MMRD Act,1957, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail .

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

The prosecution case relates to illegal crushing of stone chips by the owner of the factory and loading of the stone chips on the truck seized.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the said truck which was seized from the place of occurrence and even if any direction has been given by this Court in a PIL, that relates to illegal crushing of the stone chips and its operation, but that direction has no connection with this petitioner who is the owner of the seized vehicle. Hence the petitioner deserves the privilege of grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel representing the State opposed the prayer but fairly submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner .

Accordingly, the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of two weeks positively from the date of this order, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Khunti, in connection with Khunti PS Case No. 137 of 2015 ( GR No. 393 of 2015), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Ambastha/-                                            ( R.N.Verma, J. )