JITU THAPA ALIAS JITU BAHADUR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./1877/2026 · 2026-04-22
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6990 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6990 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:11796
--1-- A.B.A. No. 1877 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1877 of 2026
---- Jitu Thapa @ Jitu Bahadur, aged about 45 years, son of Mangal Bahadur, resident of village – Chirkundi, PO – Meghatari, PS – Koderma, District - Koderma
.... Petitioner -- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State
:- Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate
---- 02/22.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.3590 of 2024 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 26(1)(g)(d)(h)(f), 41, 42 and 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) and Sections 27, 29, 31 and 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1927 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that false allegation is made against the petitioner of collecting mica scrap. He further submits that the petitioner is up-mukhiya of Chirkundi village. He then submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and that has been disclosed in paragraph No.12 of the petition.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer
2026:JHHC:11796
--2-- A.B.A. No. 1877 of 2026
and submits that the petitioner is having 7 criminal antecedents of same nature.
5. In view of the above and considering that the petitioner is having 7 criminal antecedents of identical nature and the allegations are there of damaging forest produce to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 22.04.2026 Sangam/