CHANDAN LAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is called out, both the learned counsels have appeared.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CST invoice no. NE07/222-23 was shown to the informant wherein the vehicle registration number was also mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that CGST and SGST have also been paid regarding the loaded stone chips and hence the articles were not stolen property. He further submits that papers related to seized vehicle are also valid. He further submits that institution of FIR is also not permissible as per Sec. 22 of the MMDR Act which mandates that in mining cases only complaint case can be filed. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent. He further submits that from perusal of paragraph no. 24 of the case diary it appears that the allegations are found to be false and therefore no case is made out against the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that notice under Sec. 41A of the Cr.PC has been issued against the petitioner and, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest. Hence this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.