AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
The petitioner has been apprehending his arrest in Gua P.S. Case No. 07 of 2008 registered under Sections 379/411 /34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 26/33 of Indian Forest Act and Section 21 of M.M.R.D. Act.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the case of the prosecution, when two dumpers were found carrying iron ore, it were intercepted by the police personnel. Upon it, occupants of it started fleeing away, but the driver was intercepted, who disclosed that at the instance of this petitioner, iron ore had been loaded on the vehicles and, therefore, the case was instituted under Sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 26/33 of Indian Forest Act and also u/s 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, but even if entire allegation made in the FIR is taken to true, no offence either u/s 379 or 411 of IPC is made out. Further it was submitted that even offence u/s 21 of Indian Forest Act would not be attracted as there is no such case that the iron ore has been extracted from the forest area and if any offence is made out, that is made out u/s 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, which is bailable and that for instituting a case u/s 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, one needs to file a complaint.
However, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that as per the case of the prosecution, iron ore was being carried at the instance of the petitioner. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for anticipatory bail and hence prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
However, if the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the same be disposed of after taking into consideration the submission regarding non-attraction of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under Indian Forest Act and the submission that the allegations do constitute only offence u/s 21 of M.M.R.D. Act, which is bailable, without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.