IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42677 of 2022 BETWEEN:- KISHANLAL YADAV S/O SHRI SADDU YADAV, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR VILLAGE OF BRKOHA P.S.
KOTAWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI B.J. CHOURASIYA, ADVOCATE)
AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. KOTWALI CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI L.A.S. BAGHEL, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.348/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Chhatarpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 414 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Sections 18(1), 18(2) of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 and Section 20(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading) Rule, 2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the owner of tractor and trolley which were found involved in illegal mining and theft of mineral product i.e. sand. He submits that after intercepting the tractor and trolley, the police not only released the said tractor and trolley, but also given possession of the same to the present applicant. He submits that later on implicating the present applicant in the alleged crime, an offence has been registered alleging therein that the applicant was found involved in illegal mining and theft of sand. He submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant was not available on spot and merely because the tractor and trolly owned by him were found involved in illegal mining and theft of sand, he cannot be made accused. On these submissions, he prays that the applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and submitted that since the vehicle owned by the applicant was found involved in illegal mining and theft of sand, therefore, he has rightly been implicated in the alleged offence. He has submitted that under such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get any protection of anticipatory bail.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of case diary, I am inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section
438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.