Patna High Court
Dilip MalakarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, directing release upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
Dilip Malakar was arrested in connection with alleged illegal sand mining from the Falgu River, charged under several sections of the BNS and under the Mining and Mineral Development Act and Bihar Minerals Rule. The trial court had earlier granted him bail conditioned on depositing Rs.1,91,654 with the Mines Department, a condition he failed to fulfill, leading to cancellation of that bail. The petitioner contended his innocence, questioned the basis of the FIR, and argued that conditional bail requiring a monetary deposit amounted to impermissible 'arm‑twisting' as per Supreme Court precedents. The State and the Mines Department opposed the regular bail application. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to regular bail and ordered his release upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting regular bail to the petitioner despite non‑payment of the earlier bail condition?
- Whether a bail condition requiring deposit of a monetary sum is permissible under law.
- Whether the allegations of involvement in illegal sand mining justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 111(3), 111(4), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- illegal mining
- bail
- conditional bail
- deposit requirement
- criminal procedure
- sand mining
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9468 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Dilip Malakar Son of Jayram Malakar @ Jairam Malakar Resident of Village
- Bhadeja, Police Station - Gaya Muffasil, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mines Inspector, Gaya, Dist.- Gaya. Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P., Mines
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Mines.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 111(3),
111(4), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 61(2) of BNS,
Section 21 of the Mining and Mineral Development Act and
Section 56 of the Bihar Minerals Rule.
3. The case of the prosecution is that police had input
that 60-70 persons are indulged in illegal mining of sand from
falgu river. On this information, police raided the place and they
found 15-20 tractors and 50-60 persons were loading sand on
the tractor. All the miscreants started fleeing away seeing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9468 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/3
police. They could not be apprehended.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not clear from
the FIR, as to how the informant has come to know about the
name of the persons and who has informed him regarding the
names. Learned counsel has further submitted that from perusal
of the order of the learned trial court, it will transpire that
learned trial court itself has granted bail to the petitioner on the
condition that he will deposit Rs. 1,91,654/- to the Mines
Department. He has further submitted that from perusal of the
FIR, it is not clear as to how much of sand was being excavated
by this petitioner. He has also submitted that the bail granted
bail learned trial court has been canceled as the petitioner has
not deposited the amount. He has further submitted that
conditional bail on the ground that the petitioner should deposit
a given sum, such orders should not be passed in view of the
catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is
called the practice of arm twisting which is not permitted in the
eye of law. Anyhow, the petitioner was granted the privilege of
bail on merit, this cannot be rejected only on the ground that he
has not fulfilled the conditions of depositing sum of above said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9468 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
3/3
amount. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 02.07.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the Mines have vehemently opposed the prayer of
regular bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025 on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gaya.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…