2025:JHHC:12114-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 129 of 2025 Azad Kumar Kushwaha @ Guddu @ Guddu Mahto …... …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Respondent WITH Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 138 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Mahto …... …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Respondent WITH Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2025 ------- 1. Ram Kishun Mahto 2. Mohammad Mustafa …... …. Appellant(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. …. Respondent -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P : Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P -------- 04/ Dated 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. K. Chatterjee as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P on behalf of the State. These appeals are directed against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in A.B.P. Nos. 467/2024 & 491/2024 in connection with Mirzachowki P.S. Case No.80/2024, whereby and wherein, the prayer for bail of the appellants were rejected. It has been alleged that the appellants were involved in illegal mining, storage and transportation of minerals without any valid license. So far as the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 129 of 2025 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 138 of 2025 are concerned, they are alleged to have carried out illegal mining activities. So far as the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 315 of 2025 is concerned, they happen to be the owner of poclain machine which was used for mining purposes. It appears that the involvement of the appellants seems to have been made on the disclosure made by some of the villagers. The appellants in Cr.Appeal (DB) No.315/2025 have merely hired the poclain for mining activities in the place where it is alleged that the illegal mining activities were being carried out. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail of one of the co-accused in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 146 of 2025 has been rejected by co-ordinate bench of this Court. Regard being had to the entire facets of the case, we, while setting aside the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in A.B.P. Nos. 467/2024 & 491/2024 in connection with Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 80/2024, direct the appellants to surrender before the court below within a period of 4 weeks and the learned court below on their surrender shall release them on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Sahibganj in connection with Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 80/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) B.N.S.S. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Ambuj Nath, J.) BS-Saurav/-