ANIL VERMA @ ANIL KUMAR VERMA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./4821/2026 · 2026-08-27
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24196 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24196 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:25748 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4821 of 2026
Anil Verma @ Anil Kumar Verma, aged about 56 years, son of Ramjee Prasad, resident of Ashok Nagar, Near Raj Kamal School, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad ...... … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner
:Mr. Gautam Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
02/ 27.08.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No. 123 of 2012, corresponding to S.T. No. 289 of 2024, registered under sections 413, 414, 34 of I.P.C and under section 33 of Indian Forest Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that allegation of illegal excavation of coal from the forest area is not correct. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.
4.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegations are there of excavating the coal from the forest area and petitioner has involved 10-15 tractors for transportation to Dehri and Banaras and petitioner has three criminal antecedents of identical nature.
5.
In the F.I.R there is direct allegation of excavating the coal from the forest area and allegations are also there that petitioner has involved 10-15 tractors for transportation to Dehri and Banaras and petitioner
( 2026:JHHC:25748 )
has three criminal antecedents of identical nature which has come in the
order of the learned Sessions Judge.
6.
In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Dt.27.08.2026
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-