Jatilal Sardar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties, particularly the petitioner's contention that the stone chips were being transported with valid documentation, including the CST invoice and payment of GST. The Court also noted the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of Section 22 of the MMDR Act and the finding during investigation that the petitioner's documents were valid. The Court found the petitioner's case to be better than that of Chandan Lal, who had been granted bail. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender in the court below within two weeks and be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, including providing his mobile number and Aadhaar card photocopy with an undertaking not to change the number without prior court permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Jatilal Sardar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Sundarnagar PS Case No. 12 of 2023. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was transporting 600 cft. of illegal stone chips in vehicle registration No. JH-05-AY-6081. The petitioner contends that the stone chips were being transported based on a valid CST Invoice No. NEO7/222-23 dated 29.04.2023, issued by M/s Naina Coal Sale Stone, M/s Naina Fly Ash Bricks, and that CGST and SGST have been paid. The petitioner argues that the articles were not stolen property and were being transported with valid documentation. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the vehicle papers are valid and up-to-date. The petitioner also asserts that the institution of an FIR by the police is impermissible under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which mandates a complaint case. The investigation reportedly found the petitioner's documents to be valid. The petitioner also highlights that he has no prior criminal antecedents and that his case is similar to that of Chandan Lal, who was granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of transporting illegal stone chips and the alleged violation of Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the stone chips were being transported with valid documentation, including a CST invoice and payment of CGST and SGST, thus not constituting stolen property. He contends that the offence under Section 414 IPC is not made out, and in cases covered by a Special Law (MMDR Act), the general law (IPC) is inapplicable. The petitioner further argues that the FIR institution is impermissible under Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which requires a complaint case. He emphasizes that the investigation found his documents to be valid and that he has no prior criminal antecedents. His case is stated to be on better footing than a co-accused granted bail. Revenue's arguments: The State opposes the anticipatory bail application, submitting that 600 cft. of illegal stone chips were seized, being transported through the alleged vehicle.