( 2026:JHHC:8117 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1305 of 2026 1. Kishun Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Chando Singh 2. Parmeshwar Saw, aged about 59 years, son of Khuvi Saw Both residents of village and P.O. Inderwa, Indarwa, P.S. and District- Koderma ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P 02/ 23.03.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 1018 of 2024, registered under sections 26 (1) (g) (d) (f) (h), 41, 42 and 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) and sections 27, 29, 31 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegations are made that on the motorcycle mica scraps were loaded. He next submits that in the complaint the petitioners are not named however the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the ground that petitioners are having criminal antecedent. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that cognizance has not been taken on the ground that petitioners are having criminal antecedent. 5. Considering that in order taking cognizance it has not come that cognizance has been taken on the ground that petitioners are having criminal antecedent wherein learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the said fact. Allegations are there of collecting mica scraps by excavating the forest area. The petitioners have criminal antecedents which has come in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2026:JHHC:8117 ) 6. In the attending facts and circumstance of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer of anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.23.03.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-