Allowed

Chaturi Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2020A.B.A./2884/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to five petitioners facing arrest in Forest Case No.182/2015, linking them to offences under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, allowing bail upon summons or arrest within four weeks upon furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to a bond of Rs. 20,000 each and two sureties of like amount to be produced within four weeks.

Chaturi Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 2884 of 2020

¶3

Chaturi Pandit

¶4

Suresh Pandit

¶5

Makun Pandit

¶6

Baldeo Pandit

¶7

Ramchandra Pandit … Petitioners - Versus - The State of Jharkhand …. ... … Opposite Party

¶8

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶10

(Through: Video Conferencing)

¶11

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Verma, APP

¶13

02/09.09.2020 In view of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 AM onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶14

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Forest Case No.182/2015 for the offence registered under Sections 33 (i) (c) and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, pending before the Court of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Giridih.

¶15

Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned APP for the State.

¶16

Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. There is no direct and specific allegation against the petitioners as it appears from the prosecution report that allegation has been made of hearsay basis by the forest guard. He further submits that it is not clear from the allegation that whether the petitioners were doing work in the capacity of labourers or owners. The petitioners are poor persons, who earned their livelihood by doing daily wages labourer in other field. There is no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. He further submits that petitioners are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed upon them by this Hon’ble Court for

¶17

¶18

grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned APP opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory

¶20

bail.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks’ from the date of this order, the petitioners named above, shall be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of officer concerned, in connection with Forest Case No. 182/2015, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

punit

Chaturi Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaturi Pandit 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

Raj Kumari Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs Regional Labour Commissioner Central

Kunwar Singh Hessa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bachho Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lukehwar Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niraj Singh Alias Niraj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand