Patna High Court
Kailu Singh @ Gulshan @ Gulshan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Kailu Singh, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging illegal mining of sand using a tractor without registration and an expired challan, violating Sections 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 56 of the Bihar Minerals Rules, 2019. During a surprise inspection, the tractor was intercepted, the driver and owner resisted, fled, and a mobile phone was seized, leading to allegations of loss of government revenue. The petitioner contended that he had no connection with the seized phone, that his tractor was not seized at the spot, and highlighted that he had been acquitted in six of fifteen prior cases, leaving nine pending cases. The opposing party argued that the tractor escaped without seizure, lacked registration, and the challan was expired, and noted four prior similar cases against the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bihar Minerals Rules in view of the alleged illegal mining offence and his prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- illegal mining
- criminal antecedents
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bihar Minerals Rules
- FIR
- seizure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8941 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2025 Thana- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI District-
Sheikhpura
======================================================
Kailu Singh @ Gulshan @ Gulshan Kumar, S/O Geeta Prasad Singh @ Lato
Singh @ Geeta Singh, Resident Of Village- Maharath, P.S.- Shahpur, District-
Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Mining Dept. Officer, Sheikhpura Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P. Mines
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sheikhopur Sarai P.S. Case No. 101 of 2025 dated
24.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
Section 56 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, Neha
Kumari, Mining Inspector, Sheikhpura, states that on
24.07.2025 at about 2:00 P.M., during a surprise inspection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8941 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
against illegal mining near Sheikhopur Sarai Block, a red-
coloured tractor loaded with sand was intercepted, which had
not displayed registration number and was carrying sand on the
basis of an expired challan dated 23.07.2025. When the driver
was directed to take the vehicle to the weighbridge for
verification, the vehicle owner and driver, in collusion with each
other, scuffled with the Home Guards and fled away with the
tractor, during which the driver’s blue-coloured Redmi mobile
phone was seized. The tractor was carrying approximately 110
cft of sand without a valid challan, thereby causing loss to
Government revenue.
4. Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no
concern with the alleged mobile phone which is said to have
been recovered from the alleged place, though he is owner of
the alleged tractor and was also driving the same on the alleged
day but the petitioner’s tractor was not seized from the alleged
place, which is undisputed and in this regard, specific statement
has been made in paragraph no. 11 of the petition. It is lastly
submitted that though against the petitioner there were 15 cases
but he has been acquitted in six of them, so, presently against
him there are criminal antecedents of nine cases.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8941 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
5. On the other hand, Ms. Shruti Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the O.P. No. 2, submits that petitioner’s tractor
could not be seized at the spot as he managed to escape when
his tractor was being taken for weighing the loaded sand but at
that time, there was no registration on the tractor’s engine and
the copy of the challan which was produced by the petitioner at
the time of intercepting his tractor was found to be expired and
the same was not valid at that time. It is lastly submitted that the
petitioner has remained accused in four cases of the similar
nature though there are some other cases also pending against
him.
6. Considering the seriousness of the allegation
appearing against this petitioner from the FIR as pointed out by
learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 and further taking
note of the petitioner’s nine criminal antecedents, this Court is
not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.