AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is first application on behalf of applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as applicant is in
custody since 23.9.2021 in connection with Crime No.145/2021 registered at Police Outpost-Wadrafnagar, Police Station Basantpur, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj (CG) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
At the outset, Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned Government Advocate for the State raises objection with regard to maintainability of this bail application
on the ground that allegation against applicant is of forging pit passes, therefore, provisions of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act,1957 [for short 'the Act of 1957'] will be attracted and as such, case including application for grant of bail is to be considered by
Special Court. In case at hand, bail application is rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur, before whom application was not
maintainable, as a result, present application under Section 439 CrPC is also not maintainable. He submits that had applicant filed application under
Section 439 CrPC before Special Court, then order of rejection of bail application by Special Court is appealable before High Court. Hence, this bail
application is not maintainable.
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant would submit that after registration of aforementioned crime, upon due investigation police
submitted charge sheet for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC only. In charge sheet there is no mention of commission
of any crime under the Act of 1957. It is also pointed out that charge sheet is filed before the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate, hence applicant moved
an application under Section 439 of CrPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur and after rejection of same, approached this Court by filing
instant application for grant of regular bail. Submission of learned State Counsel that applicant had to file an application for grant of regular bail before
the Special Court is not correct.
As regards submission of learned State Counsel with respect to maintainability of this bail application on the ground that case is to be tried by
Special Court, as submitted by learned State Counsel and learned counsel for applicant, charge sheet against applicant is filed before the Court of
jurisdictional Magistrate for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC only. Applicant is seeking bail in respect of
allegations levelled against him for which he was arrested and is in jail since 23.9.2021. Since there is no allegation of violation of any of the provisions
of the Act of 1957, submission of learned State Counsel at this stage cannot be accepted and it is hereby repelled. In the given facts and
circumstances of case, present application is maintainable.
Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Gaurav Raghav lodged report in concerned police station on 22.9.2021 stating that complainant is a
Contractor engaged in construction of road. He has been granted some mining leases in Wadrafnagar area. He came to know that applicant is issuing
forged and fabricated mining pit passes in the name of complainant. Based on written report, aforementioned crime is registered against applicant.
During investigation, police seized about 210 forged pit passes from possession of applicant. Upon making query from authority competent to issue pit-
pass, it was found that pit passes seized from possession of applicant were not issued from the office of competent authority. Seal appearing in seized
pit passes is different from that of seal affixed in pit passes issued in the name of complainant. Applicant was arrested on 23.9.2021.
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned crime on account of
some dispute between applicant and complainant. He also submits that complainant in complaint mentioned that he never got issued any pit pass in his
favour but in charge sheet there is mention that complainant himself obtained pit passes from the Competent Authority which prima facie shows that
false allegation is levelled against applicant. He submits that statement of any of the truck owners is not recorded by police to substantiate allegation of
issuing forged and fabricated pit passes. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed, offences are triable by Magistrate, applicant is in jail since
23.9.2021, hence he may be enlarged on regular bail.
On the other hand, Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned Government Advocate for the State opposes submissions of learned counsel for applicant and
submits that applicant was found in possession of more than 200 forged and fabricated pit passes which shows that allegation levelled against applicant
by complainant is correct. He also submits that by preparing forged pit passes applicant damaged environment, hence he is not entitled for grant of
regular bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations; seizure of more than 200 forged and fabricated pit passes from
possession of applicant, I do not find present to be a fit case where applicant can be released on regular bail.
Accordingly, bail application is rejected.