Allowed

Litari Saw Alias Litar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Sept 2024A.B.A./5825/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a forest encroachment case alleging false implication; noting a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, the court enlarged them on anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs.20,000 each with two like sureties before JM 1st Class, Hazaribag, subject to S.482(2) BNSS conditions.

Litari Saw Alias Litar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5825 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Litari Saw @ Litar Saw S/o Janki Saw

¶4

Bhajan Saw S/o Basudev Saw Both R/o Village Kathoutiya, P.S. Katkamsandi, P.O. Danto, District Hazaribag

¶5

.......... Petitioners.

¶6

-VersusThe State of Jharkhand .......... Opp. Party.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Akshay Yadwendra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ----- Order No.02 Date: 09.09.2024

¶11

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with G(F) Case No.1749 of 2020 registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the offence report. As per the allegation, the petitioners and other co-accused persons by encroaching the land within the Kathoutiya protected forest had ploughed the field and had constructed houses over it. It is further submitted that the petitioners have neither any concern with the said land nor any house has been constructed by them. They have been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Similarly situated co-accused-Galtu Singh @ Sarju Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 30^th August, 2024 passed in A.B.A. No.5569 of 2024. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned P.P. opposes the petitioners’ prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with G(F) Case No.1749 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶16

Arpit/

¶17

-2-

¶18

A.B.A. No.5825 of 2024

Litari Saw Alias Litar Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Litari Saw Alias Litar Saw 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

Pintu Bishwakarma Alias Umashankar Bishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Alauddin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Alias Sarfaraj Sk Alias MD Sarfaraj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharmendra Karmakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand