LAWS(JHAR)-2012-3-188

SATENDRA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On March 05, 2012
Satendra Prasad Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 413, 414, 465 and 471/34 of the I.P.C. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution case in brief is that one Rajdeo Sharma, A.S.I. Sadar P.S., Chatra, has submitted his written report stating therein that he along with other personnel got information on 6.12.2003 that the three trucks were coming from Balumath side with illegal coal loaded on it. When the police intercepted those trucks at about 11:45 p.m. which were going to Itkhori side, and directed them to produce the documents with respect to the coal loaded on the said trucks, the driver of truck No. UP-65-C-5253 disclosed his name as Sanno Son Besra and produced the document of coal and disclosed the name of the owner as Rajendra Singh. From the said document, it appears that the coal belongs to the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, Sikini colliery project and the supplier, Pradeep Kumar loaded 14.820 M.T. of coal on 03.12.2003 and 04.12.2003. The said driver has further disclosed that on the same paper twice or thrice the coal was transported. The Drivers of other trucks also disclosed the same thing.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this is not a case of theft, but fabricating a document. it is further contended that the petitioner is a D.O. Holder and he used to sell the coal, but the documents issued by him, were used by the other co-accused number of times, and for this, he cannot be held responsible. Therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

(3.) Counsel for the State has filed counter-affidavit in this case and stated that the petitioner with collusion of the driver of the truck and the owner are transporting the coal twice or thrice on one paper and they are selling the same causing huge loss to the Government revenue. He has further contended that the case is of 2003 and the petitioner has come for his anticipatory bail in the year 2011 and is avoiding to appear in this case for such a long time.