Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8451 (JHR)

BISUN GOPE v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1943/2025 · 2025-03-26

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. 1943 of 2025 1. Bisun Gope, Aged about 48 Years, Son of Kolha Gope, Resident of-Village-Kusumbha,Sultana, Post Office-Hazaribag, Police Station-Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag. 2. Rajesh Gope @ Rajesh Yadav, Aged about 40 Years, Son of Jagdish Yadav, Resident of-Village-Kusumbha, Sultana, Hazaribag, Post Office- Police Station-Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag. 3. Mukesh Gope @ Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Aged about 32 Years, Son of Rameshwar Yadav, Resident of-Village-Kusumbha, Sultana, Post Office-Hazaribag, Police Station-Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag. … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Nawin Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. P.K.Chatterjee, Spl. PP 02 / 26.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint (F) Case No. 1628 of 2020 registered under Sections 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in cutting of Saal trees. 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 also undertake to deposit Rs. 57,000/- jointly with the DFO, Hazaribagh, West and they undertake not to enter into any forest area in any manner during pendency of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 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. 57,000/- jointly with the DFO, Hazaribagh, West 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 JMFC, Hazaribagh in connection with Complaint (F) Case No. 1628 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioners will not enter into any forest area in any manner 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/-