The High Court of Jharkhand, relying on the serious nature of the allegations and the requirement for custodial interrogation, rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a case involving forest encroachment.
Prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1224 of 2021
------
Dineshwar Sao .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P
Order No.03 Dated- 21.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with G (F) Case No.2078 of 2019 registered under Sections 33 (i), (a) and (c) of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment Act) and Section 29 of Wild Life Protection Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has encroached upon the forest land and was showing paddy in 12 decimals of protected forest land causing damage to the forest. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that though the petitioner is not the owner of the land but he does not have any title document and he will not vacate the forest land and the title suit is going on between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a threat to the forest in the locality and he is a land grabber. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Animesh/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR regarding forest encroachment.
Whether the requirement of custodial interrogation negates the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dineshwar Sao
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
