Patna High Court
Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the evidence did not conclusively establish his participation and his compensation offer was deemed acceptable.
Summary
The petitioner, Rupesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR alleging illegal sand mining and assault on police officials. The prosecution alleged his involvement based on the presence of his name among those identified during a raid. The petitioner argued lack of material linking him to the crime and offered to pay Rs.1,00,000 to the Mining Department as compensation without admitting guilt. The State opposed bail, citing sufficient evidence of complicity, while the Mining Department had no objection to the compensation proposal. The court, considering the petitioner’s willingness to compensate and the absence of conclusive proof, granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including a bail bond, sureties, and compliance with procedural requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in view of the alleged involvement in illegal mining and assault.
- Whether the petitioner’s offer to compensate the Mining Department influences the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 132, 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2019 — s. 21, 56(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal mining
- compensation
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30538 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar
======================================================
Rupesh Kumar S/o- Krishnandan Rai @ Krishnandan Ray R/v- Kolso
Motnaje Ps- Tariyani Dist- Sheohar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Department of Mines and Minerals, through its Commissioner, Patna
Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Prabhat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Mines and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Tariyani P.S. Case No. 258 of 2025, F.I.R dated
16.12.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 109 (1), 132, 3 (5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 21, 56 (2) of Bihar Minerals
(Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation &
Storage) Rule 2019 .
3. According to prosecution case, on 15.12.2025 the
Mining Inspector, informant, while conducting search raid
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30538 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
against illegal mining activities intercepted two tractors loaded
with sand. Upon demand, the drivers failed to produce a valid
challans and disclosed that Kunal Kumar and others were
involved in illegal sand mining. It is further alleged that while
the tractors were being taken to the police station, 08-10
unknown persons, armed with weapons and lathis, arrived in
two four-wheelers, attacked the officials with an intention to
kill, assaulted three personnel, and forcibly got the tractors
released. Thereafter, on the basis of the occurrence, the names of
Kunal Kumar, Munna Kumar, Rupesh Kumar, Rinku Kumar and
other 04-05 unknown persons surfaced in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
is no material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the
instant case, while there is no plausible explanation with the
petitioner to revert the presumption that the petitioner is
involved in illegal mining activities, looking to his antecedent.
5. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner on
instructions is ready to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Mining
Department without accepting his guilt. The counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the quantified amount, which
have been proposed to be paid by the petitioner, may be directed
to be accepted by the Mining Department in three installments,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30538 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
which shall be paid by this petitioner in 06 months.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner citing
that there are ample materials to show his accomplicity, but
since the proposal of the petitioner to compensate the loss
caused to Mining Department by offering to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-
without accepting his guilt.
6. Counsel for the Mining Department has no
objection, if such proposals are made by the counsel for the
petitioner to compensate the loss caused to the Department.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has
proposed to compensate the Department of Mines on account of
loss caused to the Department by paying an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- in three installments within 06 months and first
installment shall be paid on the date of furnishing the bail bond,
this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30538 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Sheohar in connection with
the P.S. Case afore-mentioned, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
with other following conditions:-
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or 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;
(iv) 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)
surya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.