Dismissed

Chandradip Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2020B.A./5686/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi denied bail to the petitioner accused of selling protected forest land. The court rejected the prayer due to the petitioner's failure to surrender after provisional bail expired and his absence when witnesses were present in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail in both cases pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro stands rejected.

Chandradip Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5686 of 2018

Chandradip Kumar

… Petitioner

-versus-

State of Jharkhand

… Opposite Party

WITH B.A. No.5594 of 2018

Chandradip Kumar

… Petitioner

-versus-

State of Jharkhand 2. Ghanshyam Pandey … Opposite Parties ----

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶13

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.C. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶15

¶16

7/ 03.10.2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶17

Allegation against the petitioner is that he sold protected forest land to many persons including the informant.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is absolutely civil in nature. He submits that lands were sold long back, but after 4-5 years of the transaction, the FIR was lodged. He submits that infact petitioner remained in custody for more than twenty one months in B.A. No.5594 of 2018 and fifteen months in B.A. No.5686 of 2018, so he deserves bail.

¶19

Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that protected forest land was sold by this petitioner to the informant of this case and many others. He submits that this is not a simple case of civil dispute, rather knowing fully well, the petitioner has sold the forest lands. He submits that same land was sold to many persons also. He further submits that the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court and has not surrendered even after expiry of provisional bail, thus, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He submits that this is not a case where the petitioner should be granted regular bail.

¶20

After going through the records, I find that allegation against the petitioner is that he had sold protected forest land. While going through the

¶21

-: 2 :-

¶22

order-sheet of these two cases, I find that petitioner was enlarged on provisional bail. He was directed to remain physically present before this Court on 06.03.2019, but, he failed to do so. The provisional bail, which was granted, was for a limited period, i.e., till 23.04.2019. After 23.04.2019, the petitioner did not surrender nor filed any application for extension of his provisional bail. The petitioner was admittedly arrested on 21.09.2019, that too in another case and not in these two cases.

¶23

Further, I find from the order-sheet dated 22.05.2019 in G.R. No. 201 of 2016 (B.A. No.5594 of 2018), that witnesses were present in the Court below, but, accused person did not appear.

¶24

From the aforesaid facts, it transpires that petitioner inspite of expiry of his provisional bail, did not surrender before the Court below, nor appeared when the witnesses were present. This suggests that petitioner was evading trial and his appearance. Thus, whatever are the merits of these cases, since the petitioner did not surrender on expiry of his provisional bail nor appeared before the court below when the witnesses were present, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner, as there are reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will evade trial and will not face the same. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in both cases in connection with Sector XII P.S. Case No.28 of 2018 and 16 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.487 of 2018 and 201 of 2016, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bokaro stands rejected.

¶25

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶26

anjali/Kumar/Cp-03

Chandradip Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandradip Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lugo Alias Sanika Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhaiya Lal Chauhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandradip Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ratan Lal Mahto Alias Ratan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand