Krishna Sharma Alias Kishun Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1521 of 2025

¶2

------

¶3

Krishna Sharma @ Kishun Rana, aged about 77 Years, son of Late Hemraj Sharma @ Late Hemraj Rana, resident of 365-6/9, Subhash Nagar, Hurhuru, Behind K.B. Singh High School, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh.

¶4

Santosh Kumar Rana @ Santosh Rana, aged about 34 Years, son of Late Baldeo Rana.

¶5

Pankaj Rana, aged bout 36 Years, son of Sri Mahadev Rana.

¶6

Anil Rana @ Ashok Rana, aged about 36 Years, son of Sri Krishna Sharma @ Kishun Rana.

¶7

Petitioner No.-2 to 4 are residents of Village- Pundari, P.O.Marhand, P.S.- Katkamdag, Distt.- Hazaribag

¶8

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶11

------

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

For the Petitioners : Md. Asghar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.

¶14

Order No.02 Dated- 06-03-2025

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with G (F) Case No.307 of 2017 registered under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners made illegal construction of house over the forest land. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the alleged house does not belong to the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the

¶19

petitioners are threat to the existence of forest and are bent upon encroaching the forest land and thereby destroying the forest in an organised manner and so they have succeeded in forcibly occupying two and half Acre of forest land and converted the same to their own use. It is then submitted that the petitioners are absconding for more than 8 years. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶20

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of constructing a house over the forest land causing a loss of Rs.5,00,000/- and legally occupying 2.5 acres of forest land, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

Animesh/

Krishna Sharma Alias Kishun Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Sharma Alias Kishun Rana v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prameshwar Mahto Alias Parmeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Govinda Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Dangi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand

MD Arif Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalu Mandal Alias Jitendra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand