Patna High Court
Shyam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2 (Guddu Kumar) subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Shyam Kumar and Guddu Kumar, were implicated in a case of illegal sand mining where police seized 14 tractors loaded with sand. Shyam Kumar was arrested during the pendency of the anticipatory bail petition, leading the court to withdraw his part of the petition. The petition then focused solely on Guddu Kumar, who argued that none of the seized tractors belonged to him and that he had two prior cases in which he was acquitted. The Mines Department opposed the bail but offered no specific allegations against Guddu. Considering the lack of ownership of the seized property and his prior acquittals, the court granted anticipatory bail to Guddu Kumar subject to standard bail conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to Guddu Kumar despite suspicion of involvement in illegal sand mining
- Whether the absence of ownership of seized tractors and prior acquittals justify granting bail
- Applicability of Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita in granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(3), 111(4), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 482(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal sand mining
- seizure of property
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4915 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Shyam Kumar S/o Naresh Sao R/o Village - Bhadeji, P.S - Mufassil, District
- Gaya
2. Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Saw S/o Naresh Sao R/o Village - Bhadeji, P.S -
Mufassil, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Mines Inspector, Gaya Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP Mines
Mr. Shruti Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025 dated
21.04.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
111(3), 111(4), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 61(2) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 21 of the MM (D&R)
Act and Section 56 of the B.M. (CPIMT & S) Rule.
3. As per prosecution case, acting on information of
illegal sand mining in the Falgu River, a police team conducted
a raid and found several tractors loaded with illegally excavated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4915 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
sand. On seeing the police, the accused persons fled away,
leaving behind 14 loaded tractors containing about 66,584 cubic
feet of sand. It is alleged that 23 named and 35 unknown
persons were involved, causing a revenue loss of Rs.
70,91,196/- to the State Government revenue.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset
submits that during dependency of the instant anticipatory bail
petition, the petitioner no.1, namely Shyam Kumar has been
arrested and seeks permission to withdraw this case against him.
4.1. Permission is accorded.
5. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail petition
stands dismissed as withdrawn on having become infructuous as
against the petitioner no.1, above named.
6. Now, the instant petition is confined only to the
petitioner no.2, above named.
7. Counsel for the petitioner no.2 submits that in this case,
the police party have seized 14 tractors but, none of them
belongs to the petitioner and his name has surfaced in this case
only on the basis of suspicion. It has next been submitted that
the petitioner no.2 has two incidents but, in both of them,
acquittal has been recorded.
8. On the other hand, counsel for the Mines Department
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4915 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
no.2 but, has not points out any specific as against him.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
considering the fact that the petitioner no.2 is not the owner of
any of the tractors seized the police and the petitioner no.2
having two antecedents in which acquittal has been recorded,
this Court is inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, let the above named petitioner no.2, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gayajee in
connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S. as well as the 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4915 of 2026(3) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of 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.
11. The learned court below is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner no.2 and if the aforesaid
submission of the counsel for the petitioner is found to be
incorrect regarding his criminal antecedent, the bail bond of the
petitioner no.2 shall not be accepted.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U T
Checking your session…