Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9967 (JHR)

RANJAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./915/2026 · 2026-02-18

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:4730 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No.915 of 2026 Ranjan Kumar aged about 26 yrs. son of Late Shankar Ram, resident of Village Manatu, P.O. Haphuwa, P.S. Chatra, District - Chatra. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. ------ 2/18.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 779/2023, for the offence under section 33(1)(C) of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this court in ABA No.1329 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty that if the apprehension is there in future, he will take recourse under law. He further submits that now the cognizance has been taken and thereafter the petitioner has filed anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, however, the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the anticipatory bail. He next submits that the allegations are made that petitioner has constructed the house over 10 decimals of land of plot No. 39 of Manatu Forest area. He also submits that the allegation is false and the petitioner has not constructed any house on the forest land and he also submits that he 2026:JHHC:4730 2 has no concern with that area, where the said house is said to be constructed. He next submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in para-18 of the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there of constructing the house on the forest land. 5. Considering that the dispute is there of land, the petitioner has denied the construction on the forest land and he has also not claimed the same, in that view of the matter, the petitioner above named is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks and the learned Court shall release the petitioner on such terms and condition and sureties, the learned Court may deem fit and proper. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 18.02.2026 R.Kumar