Binu Sinha Alias Binay Prasad vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Binu Sinha, who is a transporter of coal. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Korrah P.S. Case No. 186/2024, registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Coal Mines Act, the Indian Forest Act, the MMDR Act, and the Jharkhand Mineral Rules. The petitioner's case is that the seller of the coal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABA No. 3442 of 2025. It was noted in that order that the documents, including GST and other related documents, used for the transportation of coal were found to be genuine. The petitioner argues that as a transporter, his role is similar to that of the seller who has already been granted relief.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The reasoning was primarily based on the fact that the seller of the coal had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court in a previous application (ABA No. 3442 of 2025). Crucially, it was noted that in the seller's case, the documents pertaining to the transportation of coal, including GST and other relevant documents, were found to be genuine. Considering the petitioner's role as a transporter and the established genuineness of the transportation documents in the seller's case, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The operative direction was for the petitioner to surrender before the court below within four weeks and, upon surrender or arrest, to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding the bailers' relationship to the petitioner and their property ownership in Jharkhand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a transporter of coal, is entitled to anticipatory bail given that the seller of the coal, whose transportation documents (including GST) were found to be genuine, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that he is merely a transporter of the coal and that the seller, who was involved in the transaction, has already been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner emphasizes that the documents, including GST, were found to be genuine in the seller's case, implying that the transportation itself was legitimate. Therefore, the petitioner contends that he should also be granted anticipatory bail on similar grounds. Revenue/State's Contention: The State opposed the bail application. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions, circulars, or precedents by the State were recorded in the judgment.