[2026:JHHC:29562] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5510 of 2026 ------ Laxman Kumar Yadav @ Laxman Yadav, aged about 32 years, Son of Lakhan Yadav, Resident of Hesuwa, P.O. + P.S. – Kunda, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-01-10-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.370 of 2022 registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 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 illegally felled two semel (silk cotton tree) trees from the protected forest areas. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that apart from this case, the petitioner is also involved in another case. It is also submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and the petitioner has also not mentioned as to whether warrant of arrest has been issued against him by the court concerned consequent upon his not appearing before the court concerned in the complaint case even after knowing pretty well that the same is pending in the court concerned. It is next submitted that keeping in view the fact that the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act has been made non-bailable offence by the Legislature to protect the trees in the forest which is essential for maintaining ecological balance, the purpose of the said Act will be frustrated if a person like the petitioner with criminal antecedent, is given the privileges of the anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of felling trees from the protected forest areas as well as his criminal antecedent as also he has not disclosed as to when he received summons in the complaint case and why he has not appeared in the court concerned in response to the summons, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the above-named petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above- named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-01.10.2026 Saroj/