Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Keshari @ Arun KeshriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of two trucks seized for allegedly transporting coal without permits, were charged under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. They claimed innocence, arguing that only the drivers operated the vehicles and that the case pertained merely to regulatory violations under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The petitioners offered to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 each with the Mines Department and sought anticipatory bail. The court considered the readiness to pay the amount and the applicability of Section 482(2) of the BNSS. It granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties and to comply with several conditions, including the deposit, appearance before the trial court, and non‑interference with witnesses. The bail was conditioned on compliance, and failure to do so would lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the owners of the seized trucks under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the willingness to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 with the Mines Department suffices as a condition for granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 303(2), 317(2), 482(2)
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal coal transport
- seizure of vehicles
- BNSS
- Section 482
- Mines and Minerals Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11275 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2025 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Arun Kumar Keshari @ Arun Keshri Son of Bharat Saw R/o Murpa
Kasiyadih, P.S. - Balumath, Distt .- Latehar, Jharkhand.
2. Bhuneshwar Lohara S/o Akal Lohar R/o Village - Ganeshpur, Chamtu, P.S. -
Balumath, Dist. - Latehar, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the Mines Department and learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Risiup P.S. Case No.121 of 2025 dated
25.10.2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections
303(2), 317(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the FIR, on 19.10.2025, two trucks
bearing Registration Nos. JH19B-3331 and WB59C-9433 were
intercepted while allegedly transporting coal without valid
permits or documents. The vehicles were seized, and it is
alleged that they were overloaded and operating without valid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11275 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
transport challans.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
this case. They have no criminal antecedents. It is further
submitted that the trucks in question were being driven by
drivers, and merely on the basis that the petitioners are the
owners of the seized trucks bearing Registration Nos. JH19B-
3331 and WB59C-9433 respectively, they have been implicated
in this case. It is also submitted that the allegations, at best,
suggests violation of regulatory provisions of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
5. It is further submitted that the trucks in question
have been seized, and the petitioners, without accepting their guilt,
propose to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each before
the authorized officer of the Mines Department, which may be
adjusted against the quantified liability at the time of release of
their respective vehicles in question.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing
the Mines Department submits that since the petitioners are
ready to deposit the said amount, the privilege of anticipatory
bail may be extended to them, subject to such payment.
7. Considering that the petitioners have voluntarily
agreed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the Mines Department,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11275 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M.,
Aurangabad/Successor Court in connection with Risiup P.S.
Case No.121 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) each with the Mines Department and shall
produce the receipt of such deposit before the learned Court
below at the time of furnishing their bail bonds, failing which
they shall not be entitled to the privilege of bail.
(ii) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/ known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11275 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…