Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Saw @ Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ......Opposite ... on 24 November, 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 8897 of 2022
Dinesh Saw @ Dinesh Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......Opposite party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. .....
Order No.05/ Dated:24.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No. 136 of 2022 instituted under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, under Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (JMMC) Rules, 2004 and Section 26(1)(g), 33 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per F.I.R, allegation is that truck no. JH 02BF 4358 of the present petitioner upon which valuable quartz stones of different types was found loaded with 460 plastic bags for the purpose of illegal transportation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and has no concern with the seized materials. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
It appears that driver and cleaner of the vehicle were arrested at the spot. It was disclosed that the seized materials were to be transported to the State of Gujarat for selling on higher price. Petitioner cannot be said to be not ignorant about alleged transaction.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected.
However, petitioner shall appear before the court below and seek regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) R.K