Arun Kumar Keshari @ Arun Keshri v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11275 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.
Arun Kumar Keshari @ Arun Keshri Son of Bharat Saw R/o Murpa Kasiyadih, P.S. - Balumath, Distt .- Latehar, Jharkhand. 2.
Bhuneshwar Lohara S/o Akal Lohar R/o Village - Ganeshpur, Chamtu, P.S. - Balumath, Dist. - Latehar, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, Advocate Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Mines Department and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Risiup P.S. Case No.121 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the FIR, on 19.10.2025, two trucks bearing Registration Nos. JH19B-3331 and WB59C-9433 were intercepted while allegedly transporting coal without valid permits or documents. The vehicles were seized, and it is alleged that they were overloaded and operating without valid
2/4 transport challans.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the trucks in question were being driven by drivers, and merely on the basis that the petitioners are the owners of the seized trucks bearing Registration Nos. JH19B3331 and WB59C-9433 respectively, they have been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the allegations, at best, suggests violation of regulatory provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
5. It is further submitted that the trucks in question have been seized, and the petitioners, without accepting their guilt, propose to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each before the authorized officer of the Mines Department, which may be adjusted against the quantified liability at the time of release of their respective vehicles in question.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Mines Department submits that since the petitioners are ready to deposit the said amount, the privilege of anticipatory bail may be extended to them, subject to such payment.
7. Considering that the petitioners have voluntarily agreed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the Mines Department,
3/4 let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Aurangabad/Successor Court in connection with Risiup P.S. Case No.121 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with the Mines Department and shall produce the receipt of such deposit before the learned Court below at the time of furnishing their bail bonds, failing which they shall not be entitled to the privilege of bail. (ii) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/ known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iv) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) shikha/- U T