Patna High Court
Samina Khatoon @ Asmina KhatoonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions, under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Bandar Jhulli, sought bail fearing arrest in connection with a case involving illegal sand mining where a tractor was seized and a mob allegedly took it away. They contended they were neither owners nor present at the incident and that the prosecution’s charge under Section 132 of the B.N.S., 2023 (equivalent to IPC Section 353) was untenable as there was no force used against a public servant. The petitioners also highlighted their clean criminal record and the fact that they had not previously applied for anticipatory or regular bail. The State opposed the bail application. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted the petition, directing that the petitioners be released on bail if arrested within eight weeks, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail/anticipatory bail in the present case of alleged illegal mining and related offences.
- Whether the ingredients of Section 132 of the B.N.S., 2023 (equivalent to IPC Section 353) are satisfied.
- Whether the petitioners’ clean criminal record and lack of prior bail applications affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 132, 303(2), 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- illegal mining
- Section 132
- Section 303
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77356 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2025 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Samina Khatoon @ Asmina Khatoon, W/o Md. Salam, R/o Village- Bandar
Jhulli, P.S.- Laukaha, District- Madhubani.
2. Md. Rahmul, S/o Md. Alauddin, R/o Village- Bandar Jhulli, PS- Laukaha,
District- Madhubani
3. Md. Suban @ Md. Subhan @ Md. Suabhan, S/o Mustuf ,R/o Village-
Bandar Jhulli, PS- Laukaha, District- Madhubani
4. Md. Guloo @ Najmuddin, S/o Md. Mangan, R/o Village- Bandar Jhulli, PS-
Laukaha, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Mines Inspector, District Mines Office, Madhubani Bihar
... ... Opposite Partyies
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners, apprehending their arrest, in connection with
Laukaha PS. Case No-81 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 303(2), 132, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023
as well as Section 56(2) , 4 of the B.M.C.P. of illegal Mining
Transportation and Storage Rule and 4 of M.M.D.R.
3. As per allegation, one tractor with illegal sand was
intercepted without any challan. It is further alleged that a mob
gathered there and the same was forcibly taken away by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77356 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
owner of the tractor and other persons including the Petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that they are neither the owner of the
vehicle nor the driver, nor they are anyway connected with the
tractor involved in the alleged offence. They were not even
present at the place of occurrence and their name have been
given only on the basis of suspicion and even as per the
allegation, at most, an offence of Section 132 B.N.S.S
equivalent to Section 353 IPC will be made out but even all the
ingredients for application of Section 132 B.N.S.S/ Section 353
IPC is not fulfilled because there must be allegation of resorting
to force in interference in the discharge of official duty by the
public servant.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioners have not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
petition that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.
7. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77356 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
this petition is allowed, directing the petitioners above-named,
to be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on their
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Concerned Court below, in connection
with Laukaha PS. Case No-81 of 2025, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482 (2) B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the
following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioners have any criminal antecedents,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners
after hearing them and getting satisfied that the petitioners have
concealed their criminal antecedents despite their knowledge of
the same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioners.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
U T
Checking your session…