IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.8187 of 2024 ------ 1. Kailash Ganjhu son of Manijar Ganjhu aged about 46 years 2. Shivnath Oraon @ Shibnath Uraon son of late Basdew Uraon, aged about 54 years 3. Vinay Oraon son of Budu Oraon, aged about 29 years. All residents of village- Bishrampur, P.O.- Sibla, P.S.- Balumath (Bariyatu) District- Latehar, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Peter Martin T. J., Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 20-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint (C.F.) Case No.399 of 2024 registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners encroached upon 1.5 acres of protected forest land without having any valid document and destroyed the various saplings thereon. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have filed their claim under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (herein after the Forest Rights Act, 2006). Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that the petitioners are threat to the survival of the forest and there is every chance of the petitioners indulging in their nefarious activity for encroaching upon more forest land if they are given the privileges of anticipatory bail and there is every chance of their absconding. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of causing threat to the survival of forest and the chance of their absconding if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/