Anirudh Kumar @ Anirudh Kumar Sinha And ANR v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines, Bihar, Patna And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11877 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2012 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Anirudh Kumar @ Anirudh Kumar Sinha 2.

Amar Kumar @ Amar Singh, Both Are Sons Of Braj Nandan Prasad Sinha, Resident Of Village- Ekangarsarai, Police Station Ekangarsarai, DistrictNalanda At Present Residing At Mohalla- Bhutnath Road, Police Station Agamkuan, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines, Bihar, Patna and Anr 2.

Sanjay Kumar, Son of Late Shital Prasad, Assistant Mining Director, Mines Office, Gaya Resident of Village Paharichak Police Station Sonpur, DistrictSaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Dhar Jha- Advocate For Deptt. of Mines :

Mr. Naresh Dikshit- Spl. P. P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special P. P. for the Department of Mines.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, very fairly submits that charges have been framed, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department of Mines submits that framing of charge signifies commencement of the trial.

3. Since the trial has commenced, as such, the Court should be reluctant in interfering with the quashing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11877 of 2018(3) dt.23-01-2024 2/2 application at this stage, more so, allegation is of theft being committed by the petitioners and his brother along with others of natural resources. It is also submitted that though petitioners claim to be lessees, but then, they have not annexed the lease documents with the quashing application.

4. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department of Mines, the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.

5. The quashing application is thus rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T