The State must establish Special Courts under Section 30-B of the M.M.D.R. Act to ensure timely trials for environmental offences; anticipatory bail denied in light of prior criminal activity and ongoing investigations.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

The petitioner has knocked at the portals of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest in connection with Jakhapura P.S. Case No. 06 of 2022 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 102 of 2022 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road for commission of offences under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘M.M.D.R. Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that basing on a public complaint received from the villagers regarding theft of morrum by the petitioner, the Tahasildar, Danagadi vide letter No.318 dated 25.01.2022 lodged a written report before the Inspector in-charge of Jakhapura police station stating therein that on receipt of the aforesaid complaint, R.I., Danagadi duly enquired into the matter and reported that the petitioner, who is a resident of Jakhapura is involved in theft of 8000 cum of morrum from the land measuring an area Ac.55.00 of Khata No.419, Plot No.865, kissam Salajangal of mouza- Jakhapura. He requested the Inspector in-charge of Jakhapura to register the F.I.R. against the petitioner and take immediate action.

On the basis of such first information report, Jakhapura P.S. Case No.06 dated 26.01.2022 was registered under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 21 of the M.M.D.R Act against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Sidhartha Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to political rivalry, the case has been falsely instituted and none of the villagers alleged anything against the petitioner regarding theft of morrum and the petitioner is a local man and there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel urged that the ingredients of the offence under section 21 of the M.M.D.R. Act are not attracted in the factual scenario and moreover, such offence is triable by the Special Court but no Special Court has yet been constituted in the State of Odisha in spite of the provision under section 30-B of the M.M.D.R. Act and a Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under the M.M.D.R. Act or the rules made thereunder only upon a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government and therefore, the anticipatory bail application may be favourably considered.

4. On such submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Registry of this Court was asked to get information as to whether any Special Court has been constituted in the State of Odisha in view of section 30-B of the M.M.D.R. Act and the answer was in negative.

Taking into account the importance of the matter regarding non-constitution of Special Courts in the State of Odisha to try the offences under M.M.D.R. Act, the learned Advocate General was requested to remain present to assist the Court during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application and he graciously assisted this Court without taking any side and fairly submitted that the State Government has not yet constituted any Special Court in terms of the provisions under section 30-B of the M.M.D.R. Act.

The learned Advocate General submitted on 09.02.2022 that he has obtained instruction that only ten cases under M.M.D.R. Act which relates to the Vigilance Cases are pending in the State of Odisha. When it was pointed out to him that there are number of police cases pending in different police stations for investigation and also in different Courts for trial wherein apart from the offences under various sections