Santu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7837 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2025 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Santu Kumar Son of Chandradev Prasad Resident of Village - Gordhhoba, P.S. - Tungi, Dist. - Nalanda.

2.

Saro Devi Wife of Chandradev Prasad Resident of Village - Gordhhoba, P.S. - Tungi, Dist. - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Mining Inspector, Nawada Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP For the Mines :

Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the Mines department.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the B.N.S..

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.09.2025 at about 8:50 AM, the Mining Inspector, Nawada, conducted a raid at Nardiganj and three tractors, loaded with illegally mined sand, were seized. Later, on verification from the VLTS portal, it was found that sand was illegally excavated from Dhadar river

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7837 of 2026(2) dt.20-02-2026 2/2 and the seized tractors were being used to transport the sand. Petitioner No. 1 is owner of the seized tractor bearing Registration No. BR21GC4660 and Petitioner No. 2 is owner of the seized trailer bearing Registration No. BR21GA4355.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely because they happen to be owner of the seized tractor and trailer. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Mines have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are registered owner of the tractor and trailer which was seized loaded with illegally mined sand.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T