Niwas Verma @ Niwas Kumar Verma @ Niwas ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 33 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Niwas Verma @ Niwas Kumar Verma @ Niwas ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... ... on 3 January, 2024

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                A.B.A. No.9453 of 2023
                                          ----

Niwas Verma @ Niwas Kumar Verma @ Niwas Kumar .... .... Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

----

For the Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranabesh Kr. Paul, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.

----

rd 05/Dated: 03 January, 2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.524 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 41, 42 & 52 of the Indian Forest Act, under Section 4 of the Jharkhand Forest Produce (Regulation of Transportation) Rule, 2020 and under Section 5(A)(B) of Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar.

3. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for co-operating with the investigating agency and participation in the trial. It has been submitted that although there is allegation of running saw mills but no equipment have been found. Some wood log has been found but some was outside the premises and some inside the premises. It has further been submitted that the premises is abandoned premises and as such it was not in a conscious possession of this applicant. On the above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that large amount of wood log has been found which is unaccounted for.

5. Considering the recovery, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

6. If the petitioner surrenders in the court below, the court below is directed to consider the same on its own merit without being prejudiced to the order of this Court and keeping in mind the judgment of the Apex Court.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/-

Uploaded