Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15680 (JHR)

MANJOOR @ MOHAMMAD MANJOOR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2714/2026 · 2026-06-08

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:16265 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 2714 of 2026 ---- 1.Manjur Miya @ Mohammad Manjoor aged about 39 years, son of Sarafat Ali, resident of Village Konhara Kala, PO and PS Barkatha, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 825 323. 2.Mansur Miyan, son of Sarafat Ali, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Konhara Kala, PO and PS Barkatha, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 825323 3.Md. Ansari @ Ansari Miyan son of late Islam, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Konhara Kala, PO and PS Barkatha, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 825 323 .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mrs Anshu Dubey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---- 2/08.06.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioners and for State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barkatha PS Case No.173 of 2025, for offence registered under section 317(5), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 4 and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Rules 9 and 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportatino and Storage) Rules, 2007 and Rules 4 and 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the keeping of 1000 cft stone boulders at the place of storage. She next submits that the villagers have intentionally taken the name of the petitioners and the petitioners 2026:JHHC:16265 2 have got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph no.9 of the petition. She next submits that the name of the person who has taken name of the petitioners has not been disclosed in the FIR. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that name of the petitioners has been taken by the villagers and in view of that anticipatory bail to the petitioners may kindly be rejected. 5. Considering that the person who has taken the name of the petitioners his name has not been disclosed in the FIR and it has been pointed out that the petitioners have nothing to do with the keeping of the stone boulders in question at a particular place and further the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as aforesaid, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. 6. Accordingly, petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before learned court within three weeks from today, and in event of their surrender/arrest, the petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Barkatha PS Case No.173 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 08.06.2026 SI/