Roshan Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC(A) No. 1026 of 2015 Roshan Agrawal S/o Anand Aged About 30 Years R/o Gayatri Nagar, Rajgamar, Chowki Rajgamar, P.S. Balconagar, Tahsil, Revenue And Civil District Korba (Chhattisgarh).

---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kathghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondent For applicant - Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State - Smt. Sunita Jain, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 28/10/2015 1.

This application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.220 of 2015, registered at Police Station Kathghora, District-Korba (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC & 20(4) of Mines Act. 2.

As per the prosecution case, on 13/09/2015 a truck bearing No.C.G.12 S 0339 was transporting illegal coal which was seized by the police. Thereafter, offence was registered under 379 of IPC and under the provisions of section 20(4) of Mines Act. Applicant is supervisor of Sarvamangala transport whose truck was being intercepted. 3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being supervisor he has no role to play and if some overt act has been done by the driver, then he cannot be held liable. He further submits that provisions of section 20 (4) of the Mines Act do not exist, therefore

applicant may be enlarged on bail.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and read out the statement of Sambhu Singh guard of the premises who caught hold of the truck. According to such statement when enquiry was being made, driver had disclosed that it was being done at the instruction of the applicant Roshan Agrawal.

5.

Therefore, considering fact that investigation is on primary stage and after taking into consideration the statement of Sambhu Singh, it can not be conclusively drawn at this stage about involvement of applicant. Considering the case diary it is felt that investigation may need custodial interrogation. Therefore I am not inclined to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

6.

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri