Shravan Kumar @ Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1924 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 33943 of 2020
           Arising out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2020 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
     ======================================================

1. Shravan Kumar @ Sharvan Kumar, aged about 26 years, Gender-Male, S/o Ramesh Singh R/o village- Barun Khemda, P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad.

2. Akhilesh Singh, aged about 37 years, Gender-Male, S/o Nathuni Singh R/o village- Narari Kalan, P.S.- Narari Kala Khurd, District- Aurnagbad.

3. Chhotu Kumar, aged about 20 years, Gender-Male, S/o Kailash Singh R/o village- Narari Kalan, P.S.- Narari Kala Khurd, District- Aurnagbad

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prashad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-04-2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Prashad Singh, learned senior

counsel along with Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Barun PS Case No. 87 of 2020 dated 03.06.2020, instituted under

Sections 379, 353, 337, 323, 504, 506, 341, 147 and 149 of the

Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33943 of 2020 dt.09-04-2021

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had

attacked the informant, who was the District Mining Development

Officer, while he was trying to stop a tractor on which sand was

loaded and on demand of chalan, had fled away after abandoning

one mobile set. It is further alleged that 10-15 persons started

pelting stones and the local police station was informed which had

reached the place of incident where one Pulsar motorcycle was

also recovered along with the sand loaded tractor.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner no.1 is the owner of the tractor whereas petitioner no. 2

is the owner of the Pulsar motorcycle said to have been recovered

from the spot and the petitioner no. 3 is the owner of the mobile

phone. It was submitted that the seizure list does not contain the

name or signature of any independent witness and all are police

constables, even though the incident is alleged to have taken place

in broad day light where several persons were present. Learned

counsel submitted that actually soil was being carried from the

land of one Uday Kumar Singh for filling the ditch of Devi Asthan

of the village where police had come and made lathi charge due to

which there was stampede and persons had to run away. It was

further submitted that though the case has been lodged by the

District Mining Development Officer, but surprisingly no case has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33943 of 2020 dt.09-04-2021

been lodged under Section 40(1) of the Bihar Mines and Mineral

Act, if at all, it was correct that the sand was being illegally taken.

6. Learned APP submitted that the officer had lodged

the case specifically for the vandalism resorted to by the

petitioners by attacking the informant. It was further submitted that

since they had no papers to show, they had resorted to this type of

act, for otherwise if they had shown the papers, there was no

occasion for the officer to detain the tractor. Learned counsel

submitted that such type of incident besides being common, also

creates demoralization and panic in the officials who are to enforce

the laws, especially environmental laws, which are blatantly

flouted. Learned counsel submitted that the Court may not grant

any indulgence to such perpetrators.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR U T