Allowed

Suresh Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026A.B.A./5176/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners accused of violating the Indian Forest Act. The court imposed conditions requiring surrender, payment of a bail bond with sureties, and adherence to BNSS 2023 provisions, considering the petitioners' lack of antecedents and a co-accused's prior bail.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to surrender within three weeks and enlarge them on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties bearing the same amount, complying with Section 482(2) of the

Suresh Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:27897]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5176 of 2026

¶3

Suresh Saw, S/O- Budhu Saw Aged about 54 years

¶4

Mantu Prajapati S/O- Muneshwar Prajapati Aged 47

¶5

years

¶6

Jagmohan Prajapati S/O- Kriti Chand Mahto Aged 53 years

¶7

All the resident of village- Tulbul Upper Tola,

¶8

P.O- Hardiyamo, P.S.-Gomia, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶9

..... … Petitioners Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. ------

¶12

05/ 15.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State.

¶13

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Forest (Complaint Case) No. 158 of 2020, registered for the offence under Sections 30(a), 30(c) and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and allegations are made that animals were grazing the plant in the forest area. He next submits that the animals were not of these petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are poor villagers and they have got no criminal antecedents and disclosure to that effect has been made in para-14 of the petition. He then submits that the other co co-accused has already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail by this court in A.B.A. No. 3230 of 2026. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the

¶16

-1-

¶17

[2026:JHHC:27897]

¶18

prayer and submits that the allegations are there of destroying the plants in the forest area. On this ground, he submits that prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶19

Considering that the animals of the petitioners were denied in course of argument and further the petitioners are having no criminal antecedents, as disclosed in para-14 of the petition and the other coaccused has already been granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid A.B.A, and in the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

Accordingly, the above-named petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Forest (Complaint Case) No. 158 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶21

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶22

Dated:-15.09.2026 Amitesh/-

¶23

-2-

Suresh Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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