Balram Manto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3763 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. Rev. No. 761 of 2022
                          ---------

1. Balram Manto

2. Paresh Mahto

3. Bijay Singh Munda @ Bijay Singh ... Petitioners

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioner : Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

---------

Order No. 05/ Dated: 19.09.2022 I.A. No. 7333 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for bail.

2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella by which the appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2018 passed by Sri Kumar Saurabh Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Seraikella in connection with G. R. case No. 173 of 2013, T.R. No. 40 of 2018 by which the petitioner have been convicted under section 21 MMDR Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one (01) year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under section 21 MMDR Act and in default of fine , they have been directed to undergo further S.I. for the period of six (06) months.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

-2 counsel for the State.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and no iron ore was found. It is submitted that the petitioners had been wrongly arrested while travelling in two tractors carrying the iron ore which were seized by the police. It is submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 01.08.2022 and hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioners were carrying iron ore in the garb of soil and hence prayer for bail of the petitioners may be rejected.

6. Perused the Lower Court Record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

7. It transpires that two tractors, being driven by these petitioners were intercepted by the police and seized for carrying iron ore without having any permit.

8. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of this caseand considering their custody the petitioners namely Balram Mahto, Paresh Mahto, Bijay Singh Munda @ Bijay Singh are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sri Kumar Saurabh Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Seraikella or his Successor Court in connection with G. R. case No. 173 of 2013, T.R. No. 40 of 2018 subject to the condition that one of the bailers must be own relative of the

-3 petitioners and all the petitioners must file an Undertaking at the time of furnishing bail bond before the learned Court below that all the petitioners shall not get indulged any such type of activities in future otherwise, the prosecution will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail.

Thus, I.A. No. 7333 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this order to sent to the Superintendent of Police , Seraikella for the needful. Cr. Rev. No. 761 of 2022 Admit.

Put up this case after six months, under the heading " For Hearing"

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Bibha/