2025:JHHC:15389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3246 of 2025 ----- 1.Anup Kumar Yadav, S/o Baijnath Yadav 2.Ashok Kumar Yadav, S/o Bhikan Yadav 3.Rameshwar Yadav, S/o Gajadhar Yadav 4.Vikash Kumar Pandey, S/o Motilal Pandey 5.Surendra Rana, S/o Basudev Rana All are residents of village & P.O.- Belkapi, P.S. Gorhar, District Hazaribag .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, AddI. P.P. …...... 02/ 13.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending their arrest for the offences under Sections 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 and Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession (JMMC) Rule, 2004. 3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. The informant who is the government official has lodged the F.I.R. stating therein that one tractor was found loaded with illegally mined sand. Thereafter, when the informant and others went to the Barakar river ghat, they found several tractors loaded with 100 cft. of sand. These sands were mined illegally. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case will not come under Section 317 (4) of the BNS. As there is no other criminal antecedent against these petitioners. He further submits that initially in the F.I.R. there is reference of only one tractor, but later on, only to falsely implicate other four tractors have also been mentioned. He lastly submits that it is impossible that all the tractors will be loaded with same quantity of sand i.e. 100 cft. without being any deviation. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that petitioners are the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicles were seized at the place of occurrence loaded with the sand which was illegally mined from the bank of river. This is huge menace to the environment. This also causes loss to the State exchequer. 7. So far as application of Section 317 (4) of the BNS is concerned, prima facie, I am of the opinion that this is a case of theft of sand also, the value of sand definitely must be more than Rs.5,000/- per tractor. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail on 27.05.2025 in A.B.A. No.2883 of 2025, he refers to the order. On query, he admits that there is no reason given as to on what ground the bail has been granted. Since, the aforesaid order is without any reason as to why the bail has been granted, so it is not binding upon this Court. 9. So far as material on record is concerned, there is overwhelming materials on record to suggest that the offence has been committed and illegal mining of sand has taken place. 10. Considering the nature of allegation, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.46 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S/