Disposed¶11

Vijay Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Feb 2026A.B.A./773/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; A.B.A.; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Vijay Ganjhu; apprehension of arrest; Complaint Case No.1171 of 2021; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra; Section 33(1)(c) Indian Forest Act; Sections 27 and 29 Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; cultivation of poppy plants on forest land; Forest Department land; no criminal antecedent; surrender within two weeks; release on terms deemed fit and proper; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender before the learned Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra) within two weeks, with release thereafter on such terms and conditions as the learned Court deems fit and proper. ¶11

Vijay Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:3790 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 773 of 2026

¶3

Vijay Ganjhu, aged 36 years, son of Jagdev Ganjhu, resident of Village Hedum, P.O. & P.S. Lawalong, District- Chatra … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. -----

¶6

03/12.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶7

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1171 of 2021, registered for the offence under Section 33(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act and Section 27 and 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case alleging that the petitioner is involved in cultivation of poppy plants on forest land. He next submits that the land is not belonging to the petitioner. He next submits that the petitioner is not having criminal antecedent, as disclosed in paragraph 20 of this application.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations of cultivation of poppy plants are there.

¶10

Considering that the land is of the Forest Department and that is not belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, as disclosed in paragraph 20 of this application and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks from today and the learned Court shall release the petitioner on such terms and conditions as the learned Court may deem fit and proper.

¶11

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

¶12

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶13

Dated: 12^th February, 2026 Ajay/

Vijay Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ganjhu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Turi Alias Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Yakub Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pravin Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khalid Alias Mahammad Khalik Alias MD Khalik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand