IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 601 of 2025 Ashish Kumar @ Ashish Kumar Mehta, aged about 40 years, Son of Arjun Prasad Mehta Residence of Village Alaunja Khurd, P.O and P.S Ichak, District- Hazaribagh. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar , Addl.PP 05 / 28.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with G (F) Case No. 482 of 2013 registered under Sections 3 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in denuding the forest in an organized manner; by using specialized digging machines, like drill machine, explosives and used to extract stones from the forest, causing loss to the forest coverage, saplings, bushes and trees. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the anticipatory bail and earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial of the case and co-accused have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed in ABA no. 9784 of 2023 hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is the head of a professional gang which is bent upon destroying the forest, by using explosives and drill machines, hence, he is a threat to survival of the forest in the locality. It is next submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and as he is threat to survival of the forest in the locality, if enlarged on bail, as well as his having criminal antecedent, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-