RAMDHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 03 / 09.05.2012 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for State. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegation made against the petitioners is that they after executing a mining lease with the complainant vide registered Deed No.6402 dated 11.10.2007 , they have further executed a second Deed i.e. Mining Lease Deed vide registered Deed No.2326 dated 12.4.2010. It is also urged that the said persons, who are made accused Nos. 3-4, in whose behalf, the lease has been granted, doing the mining over the land in question, which was given earlier to the present complainant. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the complaint case has been filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 203, 323, 504, 34, 379 & 120B of the I.P.C., but the court below has taken cognizance only under Section 325, 504, 341 and 379 of the I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that except Section 379 of the I.P.C., all the Sections are bailable. It is also submitted that as because their lease has been cancelled by the authority concerned for non-payment of the royalty and after payment of the royalty by them, they have executed the second Lease Deed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the State has opposed but not disputed the aforesaid contentions made by the counsel for the petitioners.