@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners, who are accused for the offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code as well as u/s 4(1)/21(5) of the Jharkhand Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957 and also u/s 12(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant case is totally misconceived against the petitioners, who in fact have no concern whatsoever with the establishment, in which the workers were employed and had suffered accidental death and the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners were arranging the mining affairs, is totally false. Learned counsel explains that the license for the mining lease was never granted in favour of the petitioners, rather it was granted to one Manoj Kumar Maity, who was in fact the person performing the mining business and even otherwise, the death was not on account of any act or omission on the part of the petitioners. Rather, it was admittedly on account of sudden caving in of the mine, in which both the deceased workmen were trapped.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, explains that as a matter of fact both the present petitioners were the Managers of the Mining business and it was on account of their negligence in providing the security measures that the death of the two workers, occurred.
5. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the same is accordingly rejected. Petitioners are however directed to surrender before the Court below within 15 days from the date of this order and pray for regular bail.
6. The learned Court below shall consider such prayer on its own merit as also on the basis of submission made on behalf of the petitioners, without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.
