Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 15 in 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
Santu Gupta And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2016
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      A.B.A. No. 3892 of 2015

                       1. Santu Gupta @ Santu Kumar
                       2. Uttam Choudhary @ Uttam Kumar Choudhary              ...Petitioner(s)
                                             -V e r s u s-
                       The State of Jharkhand                                  .....Opposite Party
                              CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
                       For the Petitioner(s) : - Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                       For the State         : - Addl. P.P.

05/17.03.2016

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Borio (M) P.S. Case no. 217 of 2015 instituted under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, under Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2004 and under Section 15 of the Pollution Control Act, 1986, the two petitioners namely Santu Gupta @ Santu Kumar and Uttam Choudhary @ Uttam Kumar Choudhary have moved this court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Earlier, up-to-date case diary was called for from the court concerned but from the case diary forwarded by the concerned police station, it appears that no investigation has been done after 28.06.2015.

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel representing the State.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire allegation is false and concocted one and petitioners are not the owners of the alleged crusher machine and even the petitioners have nothing to do either with the said crusher machine or the stones kept near the crusher machine. It was also submitted that the petitioners have been dragged into the case due to village rivalry.

Learned counsel representing the State opposed the prayer. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the discussions made above, I am inclined to grant the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, both the petitioners named above are directed to surrender in the court below within three weeks from today and in the event of their arrest/surrender, the court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Borio (M) P.S. Case no. 217 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 505 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Office is directed to communicate this order at once.

(R. N. Verma, J.) Ritesh