Patna High Court
Md. Qayum @ Md. Kayyum AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Qayum Ansari, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under IPC sections 379 and 411 and several provisions of the Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules for alleged illegal mining and storage of sand and stone chips. He contended that the land on which the material was found belongs to him but was occupied by three other individuals, for whom he had obtained a DCLR order directing possession to be handed over to him. The State and the Special Public Prosecutor for Mines opposed bail, alleging that the petitioner was involved in illegal mining, causing revenue loss, and that he had not reported the occupation earlier. The court examined whether the petitioner’s claim of ownership and the land dispute justified granting anticipatory bail. Concluding that the allegations of illegal mining were serious and that bail was not warranted, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for illegal mining and storage of sand and stone chips found on land he claims to own.
- Whether the existence of a land dispute and possession order affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 411
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal mining
- land dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar Minerals Rules
- revenue loss
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69602 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- ISHUPUR BARAHAT District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Md. Qayum @ Md. Kayyum Ansari S/o Moin @ Md. Moin Ansari @ Md.
Moem Ansari R/o Village- Dadar Rajgaon, Post - Barmasiya, PS- Ishipur,
Barahat, Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Mining Officer, District Mining Office, Bhagalpur Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashutosh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP for Mines
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned Spl. PP appearing on behalf
of Mines.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Ishipur Barahat PS Case No. 5 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC and
Sections 11, 39(1), (2), (3), (4), 43, 56 of Bihar Minerals
(Concession Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and in sum and
substance the allegation is that sand along with stone chips as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69602 of 2025(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
detailed in the FIR, was found stored on the land of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits no doubt
the land belongs to the petitioner but then the same was under
possession of Md.Yasin, Md. Rizwan and Dildar, as such the
petitioner had moved before the DCLR praying for a direction
upon them to vacate the land, further the aforesaid three
respondents in Land Dispute Case No. 90 of 2023-24 did not
appear, as such the DCLR passed the order dated 12-9-2024
directing the Circle Officer to get the land measured and to
ensure that the possession of the land is handed over to the
petitioner. It is thus submitted that no doubt the land belongs to
the petitioner from which the aforesaid materials were
recovered, but then the same was illegally stored by the
aforesaid three persons.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Mines vehemently opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the land
belong to the petitioner and if the same was occupied forcefully
by the aforesaid three persons by keeping sand and stone chips,
in that event, the petitioner ought to have instituted an FIR or in
the petition filed before the DCLR ought to have brought the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69602 of 2025(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
said fact to his notice, but then it appears that the case before the
DCLR was a ploy to circumvent the offence of illegal mining
being committed by the petitioner.
6. The learned Spl. PP appearing on behalf of Mines
also submits that Government has been put to huge revenue
loss. It is next submitted that during the course of investigation,
it has come that petitioner is involved in illegal mining and even
sell the illegally mined sands and stone chips. It is further
submitted that investigation in the case is continuing.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…