Patna High Court
Santu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the accusation was specific, direct and involved a grave offence.
Summary
The petitioners, Santu Kumar and Saro Devi, owners of a tractor and trailer seized during a raid on illegal sand mining, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the seized vehicles were used to transport sand illegally excavated from the Dhadar river. The petitioners claimed innocence, asserting they were merely owners with clean records. The State and the Mines department opposed bail, emphasizing the owners’ direct link to the seized equipment. Considering the specific nature of the accusation and the seriousness of the offences, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the owners of seized vehicles alleged to be used in illegal sand mining under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 303(2), 317(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal sand mining
- seizure of vehicle
- Sections 303(2) B.N.S.
- Sections 317(2) B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7837 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2025 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Santu Kumar Son of Chandradev Prasad Resident of Village - Gordhhoba,
P.S. - Tungi, Dist. - Nalanda.
2. Saro Devi Wife of Chandradev Prasad Resident of Village - Gordhhoba, P.S.
- Tungi, Dist. - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mining Inspector, Nawada Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel for the Mines department.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) and
317(2) of the B.N.S..
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.09.2025
at about 8:50 AM, the Mining Inspector, Nawada, conducted a
raid at Nardiganj and three tractors, loaded with illegally mined
sand, were seized. Later, on verification from the VLTS portal, it
was found that sand was illegally excavated from Dhadar river
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7837 of 2026(2) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
and the seized tractors were being used to transport the sand.
Petitioner No. 1 is owner of the seized tractor bearing
Registration No. BR21GC4660 and Petitioner No. 2 is owner of
the seized trailer bearing Registration No. BR21GA4355.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case merely because they happen to be owner
of the seized tractor and trailer. Petitioners claim clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the Mines have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and
submitted that petitioners are registered owner of the tractor and
trailer which was seized loaded with illegally mined sand.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…