Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9394 (JHR)

V P SINGH ALIAS VIJAY PRAKASH SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./2037/2025 · 2025-03-27

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2037 of 2025 ------ V.P. Singh @ Vijay Prakash Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Late Umakant Singh, resident of 2, Kaiser Bunglow, Garua Road, Near KS Link Road, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-27-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.674 of 2019 instituted under Section 33(C) (D) of the Indian Forest Act 1927 read with Bihar Amendment Act, 1990, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was instrumental in being involved in for laying electricity cable. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner is the Senior General Manager (Power Services and Utility Biling), Tata Steel UISL. It is then submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.07.2019 and the petitioner was not named in the offence report. It is then submitted that there is no distinct date and place of occurrence mentioned in respect of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of going to or over the place of occurrence land. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.10,000/- as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Seraikella in connection with Complaint Case No.674 of 2019 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/