Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8108 (JHR)

PRAKASH MAHTO v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1876/2025 · 2025-03-25

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 1876 of 2025 1. Prakash Mahto, aged about 29 years Son of Krishna Mahto 2. Huleshwar Mahto aged about 46 years Son of Tijan Mahto @Tejan Mahto 3. Sanjay Mahto@ Sanjay Kumar aged about 29 years Son of Raghu Mahto 4. Mukesh Mahto aged about 31 years, Son of Panjich Mahto 5. Kedar Mahto @ Kedar Nath Mahto aged about 39 years Son of Ramnath Mahto All are resident of Vill- Manamat, P.O and P.S- B. Nagar, District- Chatra. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy , Adv. For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh , Addl.. PP 02 / 25.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1149 of 2021 registered under Sections 33 (1) (C ) of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were clearing the forest area for the purpose of cultivating the poppy crop. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the anticipatory bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the trial of the case and they undertake to furnish sufficient security including cash security with further undertaking of not to go to the forest area during pendency of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioners shall be released on bail on depositing Rs. 10,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Chatra in connection with Complaint Case No. 1149 of 2021 subject to the condition that the petitioners will not go to the forest area during pendency of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of BNSS, 2023. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-