Raju Kumar Singh @ Raju Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58669 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2024 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

Raju Kumar Singh @ Raju Singh son of Late Gupteshwar Singh VillageJamuara, PS- Suryapura, Dist- Rohtas 2.

Kamendra Prasad son of Shyambihari Ram Village- Jamuara, PSSuryapura, Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shubham Sourav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2024 1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sandesh Police Station Case No. 167 of 2024, dated 17.06.2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 379, 120(B), 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 192 and 194 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 3.

The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 17.06.2024, at about 05:00 AM, the police, while on patrolling, saw three tractors loaded with sand. Upon seeing the police party, the drivers

2/4 of the tractors succeeded in fleeing away but all the three tractors along with the trolley have been seized. In the mean while, nearby local people gathered but no one was ready to be the independent witness and accordingly, seizure list was prepared in presence of two police constables. It has been alleged that 120 CFT illegally extracted sand was loaded on each of the tractors.

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the owner and petitioner no. 2 is the driver of one of the three tractors, loaded with illegally extracted sand. The capacity of each of the tractor to carry sand is 100 CFT. As per Rule 56 (2) of the 2021 Amendment Rules, the compounding fee of Rs. 25,000/- has been fixed along with the cost of mineral. The petitioners are ready to pay the compounding fee as well as the cost of sand of 120 CFT i.e. Rs. 15,000/- before the Mining Officer/Assistant Mining Officer.

5.

Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the provision of the Rule 56 (2) of the 2021 Amendment Rules, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of

3/4 anticipatory bail, subject to deposit of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand), before the Mining Officer/ Assistant Mining Officer within a period of three weeks from today. 6.

This application is, accordingly, allowed.

7.

Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, at Ara, in connection with Sandesh Police Station Case No. 167 of 2024, subject to the conditions (i) laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and (ii) the petitioners will produce a receipt granted by Mining Officer showing deposit of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand), at the time of furnishing of bail bonds.

8.

The money deposited by the petitioners shall be without prejudice to the value of the sand.

9.

The petitioners shall be at liberty to pursue the compounding before the concerned authority as per law who shall decide claim of compounding on its own merit.

4/4 However, the money deposited by the petitioners as condition of bail shall be taken into consideration for deciding the claim of the petitioners for compounding. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U T