W.P. (Cr.) No.178 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 178 of 2024 Anil Goel, S/o BC Geol, aged about 50 years, R/o –Ratanji Road, P.O., P.S. & District –Dhanbad. .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Superintendent of Police Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District -Bokaro. 3. Officer-In-Charge, Chandankiyar (Bhojudih) Police Station, P.O., P.S. –Chandankiyari, District -Bokaro. …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI : Ms. Ruby Yadav, AC to SC-VI ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandankiyari (Bhojudih) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 528 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Section 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 & 4 of the Illegal Mining Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that police apprehended certain Pick-up Vans loaded with illegally extracted coal. The driver of one of the vehicles; which was an empty vehicle stated W.P. (Cr.) No.178 of 2024 2 before police that he has unloaded the illegally extracted coal in the depot of the petitioner. On the basis of the written report submitted by the Police Sub –Inspector In-charge of Bhojudih Police Outpost, on 15.04.2010, Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. Perusal of the status report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Civil Court, Bokaro, reveals that so far charge sheet has been submitted against one accused person of the case namely Fantus Sai for having committed the offences punishable under Section 379 & 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but investigation against the petitioner is going on. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in para-25 of the case diary which was written on 26.06.2010, it has categorically been mentioned that police found the so-called Depot of the writ petitioner Anil Goel; to be an empty one. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to para-101 of the case diary; which was written on 26.08.2011 that the I.O. of the case on verifying from the District Industries Centre, Purulia (West Bengal) came to know that the Coal Depot in the name and style of Manbhum Domestic Fuel belongs to Bivishan Manjhi. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though materials in the record are sufficient to submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence and there is insufficient material in the record to submit charge sheet against the petitioner and further as there is no statutory law named as Illegal Mining Act and as there W.P. (Cr.) No.178 of 2024 3 is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any theft or dishonestly receiving any stolen property; therefore, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 3077, submits that in para -17 thereof it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions in an inalienable right under Article 21 of the constitution of India. It is next submitted that this right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well and in case right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attending circumstances enumerated above and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case and where court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, be quashed, unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice and in such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time for conclusion of trial. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for W.P. (Cr.) No.178 of 2024 4 the petitioner that in para -14 of the aforementioned Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that speedy trial means reasonably expeditious trial; which is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225 and submits that in para-81 thereof, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that social interest lies in punishing the guilty and exoneration of the innocent but this determination of guilt or innocence must be arrived at with reasonable dispatch –reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition be allowed. 7. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, true it is, that a long delay has been caused in investigation of the case but it appears from the counter- affidavit which has been sworn by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Ranchi that some evidence has been collected against the petitioner. 9. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure speedy investigation of W.P. (Cr.) No.178 of 2024 5 the remaining part of the investigation and to conclude the investigation in respect of the petitioner within three months from the date of this Judgment. 10. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd March, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-