2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1369
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAVISHANKER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR PATNA. – Respondent
Cr. WJC-1074/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1074 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-433 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ======================================================
1. Ravishanker Singh, S/O Balroop Singh, R/O Village- Jalpura, P.O-
Masaurha, P.S- Paliganj, Distt.- Patna.
2. Ratnesh Kumar, S/O Arvind Singh, R/O Village- Jalpura, P.O- Masaurha, P.S- Paliganj, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. Bihar
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna Bihar 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. Bihar
5. The District Magistrate, Patna. Bihar
6. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Paliganj, Patna. Bihar 7. The Mines Inspector, District Mines Office, Patna. Bihar.
8. The Station House Officer, Paliganj Police Station, Patna. Bihar
9. The Investigating Officer of Bihta P.S. Case No. 433 Of 2024, Bihar Police Station, Patna. Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, G.P.-12 Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-12 For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P. Mines.
Mr. Utsav Anand, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025 The present petition has been filed under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners for quashing the Bihta P.S. Case No.433 of 2024 dated 10.05.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 379, 420, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against nine persons including the petitioners.
2. The factual background of the case is that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged on the written report dated 10.05.2024 by the Mines Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna, alleging that on 10.05.2024, in the course of raid, the raiding party found vehicles overloaded with yellow sand of river sone at the Site Camp Office, Kanhauli of Ceigall Indian Limited., YFR Projects Pvt. Ltd (JV) near Bihta -Sarmera road. After checking of the vehicles, the patrolling team was called from the police station. Some of the vehicles were parked in the police station and the drivers of the rest vehicles had fled away after causing mechanical defects in their vehicles. The vehicles were loaded with about 950 cft yello sone sand. The registration numbers of the vehicles are as follows:
(i) BR01GL 9911 16 wheeler hyva truck (ii) BR01GM 5651 16 wheeler hyva truck (iii) BR01GN 5551 16 wheeler hyva truck (iv) BR01GM 5551 16 wheeler hyva truck
3. The owners of the aforesaid vehicles requested not to seize those vehicles. Hence, obstruction has been caused in discharge of the official work.
4. Finally, the owners of the aforesaid vehicles agreed to make the drivers available to take the vehicles to the police station after insistence of the officials, but due to protest of the petitioners and the owners, the overloaded vehicles were taken into the project site of the company and the sand was unloaded. The vehicles were searched by the officer incharge of Bihta Police Station at the project site of the company and only vehicle bearing registration no. BR01GM 5551 was found. The other three vehicles were taken away by other route, it shows that the employees of the company had also connived in the fleeing away of the vehicles. Hence, the petitioners and the owners of the vehicles were running overloaded vehicle. This act constitute offence under the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 as amended in the year 2021. The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code has been also requested to be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. I heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and Learned APP for the State.