AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21134 of 2025 · Patna High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Forest Act s. 42
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
Mr. Karandeep Kumar Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal ORAL ORDER 2 23-04-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Forest Case No. 65 of 2021, dated 08.09.2021, disclosing offences under Sections 5/8/10/12/13/14 of the Bihar Wood Cutting (Regulation) Act, 1990 and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment 1990) Act 1927.
The prosecution report, as per the First Information Report, is that on 08.09.2021, in the afternoon, the informant got information that the petitioner was running illegal saw mill by cutting the trees situated near roads and bank of canal and has kept the logs in his illegal saw Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21134 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 mill. Upon this information, the raiding party was formed and the police officials proceeded towards the place of ocurrence, reached there at about 06:30 PM and found that illegal saw mill was already dismantled by the petitioner, however, the informant seized one ara patti, ara pully, two bags of conai and one she sham log from the paddy field situated near saw mill and seized all the articles.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of secret information received by the forest officials. He next submits that the petitioner is not running any illegal saw mill and on perusal of the prosecution report it would be evident that saw mill was not there in running condition and only some small articles of saw mill have allegedly been recovered, whereas, the wooden log has been recovered from the paddy field. Referring to the Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, learned counsel submits that the State Government may by such rules can prescribe penalties for the contravention thereof imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both. The State Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21134 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 Amendment (Bihar) has been done for application in the State of Bihar for Section 42 and substituted the Section 42 regarding penalty for breach of rule made under Section 41 and prescribes that the imprisonment for a minimum term of six months which may extend to two years or with minimum fine of one thousand rupees which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. The petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial if he is released on anticipatory bail and shall appear on each and every date during the course of trial. The petitioner is having no criminal antecedent of similar nature of offence.
Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent of similar nature of offence and he is ready to co-operate in the trial on day to day basis, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
This application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21134 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Forest Case No. 65 of 2021, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain present before the trial court on each and every date fixed by the court and in his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled. ashwani/- U T (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.