TARKESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 406, 414, 120 -B/34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the basis of a self statement of Thakur Das Marandi, A.S.I., Pakur (Town) P.S., wherein he has stated that on 30.9.2011, at about 6:00 a.m., a Hywa Truck bearing No. JH -16 -A/6318 was detained by the petrolling party near electric office at Pakur and the Truck was found loaded with coal, and on query from the driver namely Md. Malik and the owner of the Truck namely Md. Miraj, disclosed before the petrolling party that the coal was loaded from Amrapara Panam Coal Mines and the same was to be unloaded at Lotamara Railway Siding but due to fault in hydraulic jack of the said Truck, the coal loaded on the Truck could not be unloaded at Lotamara Railway Siding. But, the said person could not produce any paper in respect of the coal except a carbon copy of challan of Panam Coal Mines though they have produced other papers as tax token showing the tax has been paid for the truck upto 18.11.2011. 3. Counsel for the State has filed a counter -affidavit in this case and submitted that it has come in the case diary that in connivance with the Incharge of the Lotamara Railway Siding, half of the challan was given towards the driver, and thereafter, the coal was taken to West Bengal. It is further contended that the petitioners are Weighing Incharge at Durgapur More, Pakur, and they have given the false receipt for receiving of the coal. It is further contended that several witnesses have supported the prosecution case which has come in the case diary. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners being the Weighing Incharge have given the receipt of receiving of the coal and allowing the trucks without unloading the coal to proceed towards West Bengal which clearly shows the involvement of the petitioners in this offence. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, hereby, rejected. Bail rejected.