Privilege granted to the Petitioner by the police under Section 41A of the Code gives the petitioner benefit of merits: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 377620 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 261 Year 2020 Thana HISUWA District Nawada Pintu Kumaraged about 38 years Son of Late Ram Lakhan Prasad Singh Resident of Village Mohalla Dasturpar Daruara PS Noorsarai Rajesh Kumar aged about 45 years Son of Krishnandan Singh Resident of Village Mohalla Dasturpar Daruara PS Noorsarai District The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s For the Petitioner s For the State Mr. Arun Kumar Advocate Mr. Dashrath Mehta APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ... Opposite Party s ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dashrath Mehta learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Hisua PS Case No. 2620 dated 10.08.2020 instituted under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 379 of the Mines and MineralsAct 1957. 4. The allegation against the petitioners who are the owner and driver of the tractor in question is of lifting sand Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377620 dt.23 07 2021 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though on merits he has a good case inasmuch as the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence would indicate that the petitioners’ tractor was in a queue waiting for the challan from the contractor and due to there being some dispute relating to parking this false case has been instituted but since the police during investigation have found substance in the stand of the petitioners they have themselves granted the petitioners the privilege under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). Thus learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to again move the Court if in future there is apprehension or likelihood of their arrest in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that since such information was not available with him at the time of filing of the present petition it has not been stated but the Court may record his submission 6. Learned APP submitted that since the petitioners are not pressing the matter on merits the Court may consider the plea 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court finds the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners to be reasonable. Since as of now there is no apprehension of arrest as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.377620 dt.23 07 2021 the agency which could effect such arrest i.e. the police itself has granted the privilege of Section 41A of the Code as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners the present petition stands disposed off as withdrawn with liberty to again move this Court in future if there is genuine apprehension of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the present case (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J

Summary: Alleged of lifting the soil and sand of the land illegally the petitioner took the merits of the case as he was allowed by the authorities as per Section 41A of the code. The court allowed the plea and disposed of the matter. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Pintu Kumar and others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 37763 of 2020].  The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection to a case instituted under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 379 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1957. It was alleged that the petitioners who are the driver and owner of the vehicle have lifted the sand of the field illegally.  Though learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has a good case on merits in that CCTV footage of the scene of the occurrence would indicate that the petitioners’ tractor was in a queue waiting for the challan from the contractor and that this false case was instituted due to a parking dispute, the police have granted the pleadings because they found substance in the petitioners’ stand during their investigation. In light of the foregoing, skilled counsel suggested that he be allowed to drop the current petition and return to the Court if there is apprehension or likelihood of their arrest in the current matter in the future. Because such material was not known to him at the time of the filing of the current petition, learned counsel argued that it was not expressed, but the Court may record his argument. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor found no sort of act of suppressing the matter on merits and asked the court to consider the plea. The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners to be reasonable. Since, as of now, there is no apprehension of arrest as the agency which could affect such arrest i.e., the police itself has granted the privilege of Section 41A of the Code, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present petition stands disposed of off as withdrawn with liberty to again move this Court in future, if there is genuine apprehension of the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the present case.”