Upendra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ….. … … on 13 April, 2026

    0
    32
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jharkhand High Court

    Upendra Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ….. … … on 13 April, 2026

    Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

    Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                    ( 2026:JHHC:10514 )
    
    
    
    
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      A. B. A. No. 1547 of 2026
    
           Upendra Yadav, aged about 44 years, son of Ramkrit Yadav, resident of New
           Pinjara, Gaushala Chowk, Upper Bazar, P.O. Geneal Post Office, Ranchi, P.S.
           Kotwali, District-Ranchi                                    ...... ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
    The State of Jharkhand                                  .....      ...      Opposite Party
                                --------
    

    CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
    For the Petitioner :Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
    For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P

    04/ 13.04.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

    SPONSORED

    counsel for the State.

    2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with

    Namkum (Kharsidag O.P.) P.S. Case No. 329 of 2025, registered under

    sections 4 (1) (A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)

    Act, 1957 and Section 7, 9 and 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of

    Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, pending in the

    Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

    owner of the truck and the said truck met with an accident thereafter it was

    found that coal was loaded in the said truck. He next submits that petitioner

    is having valid challan however dispute was with regard to certain timing of

    the challan and the challan is part of the F.I.R. He submits that petitioner

    has no criminal antecedent. However, for the same incident two F.I.R has

    been lodged.

    4. Learned counsel for the State oppose the prayer and submits that

    the coal was being carried out illegally.

    5. Considering that petitioner is owner of the truck, petitioner is

    having valid challan however dispute was with regard to certain timing of

    the challan and for the same incident two F.I.R has been lodged and in that

    view of the matter, petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned
    ( 2026:JHHC:10514 )

    court within two weeks from today and the learned court shall release the

    petitioners on terms and conditions and sureties as learned court deems fit

    and proper.

    6. This anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

    Dt.13.04.2026                                       ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
    satyarthi-
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here