Allowed

Mohan Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2024A.B.A./5894/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a forest encroachment complaint case, alleging false implication and absence of incriminating material. The court found the materials on record sufficient to enlarge them on anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: release on Rs.20,000 bail bond each with two like sureties before CJM, Dhanbad, subject to S.482(2) BNSS conditions.

Mohan Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 5894 of 2024

¶3

Mohan Mahato son of Late Mukund Mahato

¶4

Gajadhar Mahato son of Mohan Mahato Both residents of Village- Tilaiya (Behradih), P.O. & P.S.Barwadda, District- Dhanbad

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …. … Opposite Party

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. Order No. 03 Dated: 13.09.2024

¶10

The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences

¶11

punishable under Sections 30(A)/30(C) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

2. 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 have been found to have encroached the land of Tilaiya Protected Forest by constructing ‘Pucca’ house and installing a handpump after clearing the bushes. It is further submitted that there is no mention of mouza, khata and plot number in the offence report. No incrementing articles has been seized by the forest officials. Hence, there is no material in the offence report to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph-12 of the present anticipatory bail application. Hence, they may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

3. Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to

¶15

enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶16

5. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No. 1696 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’.

¶17

Ritesh/

¶18

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶19

A.B.A. No. 5894 of 2024

¶20

Mohan Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Mahato 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

Surajdev Yadav Alias Suryadev Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gudiya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Prasad Alias Sanjay Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Seval Mistri Alias Seval Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand