2025:JHHC:16740 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7790 of 2024 ----- Shyam Sunder Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/o Bandhan Yadav, R/o Digthu, P.O & P.S. Jainagar, District: Koderma, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. …...... 05/ 24.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Jainagar, (T. Dam), P.S. Case No. 107/2024, for offences under Sections 379, 414/34 of IPC, Rule 9 and 13 of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, Rule 4 and 54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The case is presently pending before the Court of Learned S.D.J.M. Koderma. 3. The case of prosecution is that on 08.06.2024 around 7:30 AM, the District Mining Officer of Koderma, along with the Circle Officer of Chandwara and police stopped a Powertrac tractor near Sainik School Road. The driver ran away after seeing the police. About 100 c.f.t. of sand was found loaded on the vehicle, and there was no mining challan. The vehicle was seized, and it was suspected that the sand was being mined and transported illegally. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He also submits that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, and he was not present at the spot when the vehicle was seized. There were no independent witnesses at the time of seizure. He further submits that the petitioner’s name has only come up because it is suspected that he was the driver of the seized vehicle. 5. The learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner was transporting sand illegally without valid documents, causing loss to the State’s revenue, so the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the parties and from the perusal of the impugned order, I find that the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature. The petitioner being the driver of the tractor, was involved in transporting sand illegally without proper documents, causing loss to State revenue. Hence, the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./