Allowed

Uday Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2020A.B.A./2832/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 9.11.2020, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in a video conference hearing, granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of forest land encroachment. The Court conditioned release on the deposit of a disputed revenue amount and furnishing of a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Principle of anticipatory bail granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1,05,000/- with the D.F.O. and furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties.

Uday Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2832 of 2020

¶2

Uday Gope … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. C. Mukherjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.

¶6

------

¶7

Order No.04 Dated- 09.11.2020

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.128 of 2019 registered under section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and under section 66(A) of the Bihar Public Encroachment Act, 1956, Bihar Act –XVI-1956.

¶10

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has encroached upon the forest land and has constructed a Pucca wall over the same causing a loss of revenue of Rs.1,05,000/- to the forest department. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in fact the forest department is claiming the part of the plot of land which belongs to the petitioner and in this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to page nos. 22-25 of the brief which is the copy of the certified copy of the report of the Circle Officer, Dhalbhumgarh. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.1,05,000/- with the D.F.O, Jamshedpur Division without prejudice to his defence in this case and subject to final decision of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 19.10.2020. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory

¶12

bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of ten weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on showing the proof of deposit of Rs.1,05,000/- with the D.F.O, Jamshedpur Division and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ghatsila, in connection with Complaint Case No.128 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶14

At the time of conclusion of the trail, the learned trial court will pass appropriate orders regarding the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner with the D.F.O., Jamshedpur Division.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Sonu/Gunjan-

Uday Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Alias Amithh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hridaya Nand Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Onkar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramiya Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pratima Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tarique Hussain Alias MD Tarique Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand