Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjanlal Dharya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-25924-2017
sh
(RANJANLAL DHARYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
e
5
ad
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-01-2018
Pr
Shri Surendra Patel, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Pandey, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
a Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of hy the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Ranjanlal ad Dharya, in Crime No.158/2017 registered by P.S. Bajag, District M Dindori under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 and 4 of the Mines and Minerals Act and Section 130(3)/177 of the of Motor Vehicles Act.
rt As per the prosecution case, on 18.09.2017 the police force of P.S. ou Bajag District Dindori intercepted a blue Swaraj tractor which did not carry any registration number. The tractor was loaded with sand and it C was being driven by co-accused Uttam. On enquiry, he disclosed that h he did not have any authorization for transportation of sand. He further ig disclosed that aforesaid sand was being brought from village Dala H Mahua, State of Chhattisgarh. He also stated that the sand was being transported at the instance of petitioner Ranjanlal, who was owner of the tractor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a letter purportedly issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bajag authorizing the petitioner to excavate sand between 20.04.2017 to 19.09.2017 from Rusa (Banjartola). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that sufficient opportunity was given to learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State to get aforesaid document verified; however, the State had failed to do so.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand submits that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that sh the document dated 20.04.2017 is authentic yet it is clear that the same was not produced before the police at the time when the e ad petitioner's tractor was intercepted by the police, which indicates that the document dated 20.04.2017 was not related to excavation of sand Pr in the instant case. It has further been submitted that the case against a the petitioner is that sand excavated from village Dala Mahua, State of hy Chhattisgarh, was being transported by his tractor; whereas, the ad document dated 20.04.2017 relates to village Rusa (Banjartola). As such, the document dated 20.04.2017 is irrelevant for the purpose of M the present case.
of Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly those pointed out by learned Government rt Advocate for the respondent/State, in the opinion of this Court, this is ou not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
C Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under section h 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner ig Ranjanlal Dharya, is dismissed. H (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Digitally signed by BIJU b BABY Date: 2018.01.18 21:31:38 -08'00'