Ashok Kumar Tulsyan vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, a director of M/s CTS Industries Ltd., sought anticipatory bail in Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021. The case was registered for alleged offences under Sections 378, 379, and 411 of the IPC and Rules 39(2)(3), 43, and 56 of the Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner transported 5,15,139.10 Metric Tonnes of stone chips between 2017 and September 2020, with 4,43,900 tonnes dispatched without e-challans, violating the Bihar Mineral Rules. The petitioner contended that his company operates in Jharkhand under valid licenses and pays royalties there, and that sales in Bihar are inter-State sales, with GST paid to Bihar. He argued there was no illegal mining in Bihar and no loss to the state's revenue.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging the allegations of transporting stone chips without valid pre-paid challans and the revenue loss claimed by the State, the Court noted that the petitioner was granted a license for storing minor minerals. Crucially, the Court observed that there was no specific allegation of mining of stones in the State of Bihar against the petitioner. The Court reasoned that given the absence of direct mining activity in Bihar and the existence of a storage license, the petitioner should be released on bail. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court below within six weeks from the date of the order, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The issue of the exact quantum of revenue loss and the applicability of specific IPC sections in the context of inter-state mineral transportation was implicitly considered in the grant of bail, but not explicitly decided as a standalone issue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's transportation of stone chips from Jharkhand to Bihar, allegedly without valid pre-paid challans, constitutes an offence under the Bihar Mineral Rules, 2019 and IPC sections 378, 379, and 411, thereby causing loss to the State of Bihar's revenue? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the stone chips were mined and crushed in Jharkhand under valid licenses, and royalties were paid to Jharkhand. He claimed that sales in Bihar were inter-State sales, and GST was paid to Bihar. He asserted that there was no extraction of minerals from Bihar, hence no royalty was due to Bihar, and no loss of revenue occurred. He also pointed out that the alleged offences under the Bihar Minor Concession Rules, 1972 and Bihar Mineral Rules, 2019 are bailable. He further submitted that he held a valid license for stocking stone chips in Bihar. Revenue/State's arguments: The State contended that the petitioner transported a significant quantity of stone chips (4,02,446 tons) without valid pre-paid transportation challans, causing a loss of Rs. 50,00,19,162/- to the State of Bihar. They argued that the petitioner chose to conduct mining activity, storage, and transportation in Bihar and must follow the existing mining rules, making the claim of helping Bihar generate GST revenue baseless. They also stated that the petitioner's bail applications were rejected twice by the lower court due to the alleged revenue loss.