Jharkhand High Court
Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 27 September, 2019
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6486 of 2019
------
Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Singh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.04 Dated- 27.09.2019 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint (U.C.) Case No.107 of 2016 registered under sections 33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and under section 3(A) of the Forest Conservation Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was engaged in illegal mining of stone boulders and loading the same on the tractor with the help of the labourers and on seeing the forest officials, the petitioners and others fled away from the place of occurrence and 15 tractors of stone boulders have been excavated which were taken away by the petitioner and the co-accused persons. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to page no.11 of the brief which is the prosecution report wherein the date of spot verification has been mentioned as 06.01.2016 though the alleged occurrence took place on 30.01.2016. Hence, it is submitted that the place of occurrence verification document is an antedated document. It is then submitted that the antedating of the said report implies that the said report is a table work. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs.5,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra, in connection with Complaint (U.C.) Case No.107 of 2016 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-