Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 respectively in Crime No.95 of 2025 of P.S. Doma, Vikarabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 324(5) and 329(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP Act') and Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short 'ES Act').

5.4 He further submitted that accused No.1 has not violated any provisions under PDPP Act or the ES Act and the ingredients of Section 4 of PDPP Act and Section 3(a) of the ES Act are not attracted against him, especially the license issued under the ES Act is valid until 31.03.2029 and the punishment prescribed for the other offences is up to seven years. He also submitted that even if accused No.1 is carrying out mining operations in an extent of Ac.1.01 gts., which is beyond the leased area, the competent authority is entitled to impose seigniorage fee, levy penalty, or regularize the said extent by including it within the leased area and may reduce Ac.1.01 gts. from the originally leased extent of 4 Hectares. He further submitted that as on date, accused No.1 is carrying out mining operations only in an extent of Ac.4.00 only and the remaining extent of Ac.6.00 of land is vacant. He further submitted that accused Nos.3 to 8 were enlarged on bail, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7866 of 2025, dated 03.07.2025. He also submitted that accused No.1 is a senior citizen and he is not having any other criminal antecedents and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, accused No.1 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments;

5.7 He also submitted that accused No.11 has been falsely implicated in the present crime on the ground that accused No.1 had entered into a partnership deed and rental agreement with him for 2022) 15 SCC 205 1 ( 2 (2021) 17 SCC 318 3 2023(1) ALT 312 (AP) investment of the amounts in his firm and for taking three vehicles on lease and accused No.12 has been implicated in the present crime on the ground that three vehicles, which are in his name, were given on lease by accused No.11 to accused No.1 and he is son of Accused No.11. Mere entering into the partnership agreement for the purpose of investment in the firm of accused No.1 or entering into the lease agreement for giving the vehicles on rent/lease does not constitute any offence against accused No.11. He further submitted that accused No.11 made investment with accused No.1 through partnership deed, dated 21.02.2020, and as per the said partnership deed, the profit/loss of the business shall be shared between them at the ratio of 65:35 and the duration of the partnership is five years from 21.02.2020, which expired in the month of February, 2025. Hence, the ingredients of Section 4 of the PDPP Act and Section 3(a) of the ES Act including the other offences mentioned in the complaint are not attracted against accused No.11.

Hence, the ingredients of Section 4 of PDPP Act are attracted against the petitioners and other accused. He also submitted that the petitioners along with other accused carried out illegal mining operations by digging 7.25 meters using explosive materials, hence, the ingredients of Section 3(a) of the ES Act are attracted against them.

6.2 He further submitted that accused No.3 in his statement specifically stated that accused No.1 is having Sri Sai Krishna Stone Crusher and Quarry and accused No.2 has taken the said Quarry on lease from accused No.1 and in the said quarry, 4 Hitachi excavators and 3 Tippers are there, out of it, 2 Hitachi excavators and 3 Tippers are belonging to accused No.12. He further submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 are business partners and they indulged in illegal mining activities and are making illegal gains. Accused Nos.11 and 12 in conspiracy with accused No.1 carried out illegal mining operations and caused huge financial loss to the Government. Moreover, the investigation is under progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they will tamper the evidence, interfere with the investigation and influence the witnesses. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Analysis: