Dhalo Thakur @ Dhalchand Hazam v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. M.K. Mehta : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P Mrs. Sugandha Khalkho Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocates ….. Order No.05/ Dated:17.05.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Forest Case No. 165 of 2012 instituted under Sections 33, 33(C), 63, 66A of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 and u/s 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, cognizance taken u/s 33, 33(1)(C), 63 of Indian Forest Act & u/s 3 A r/w 2 of Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. As per complaint case, allegation is that present petitioners have encroached the forest land under protected forest and converted it for agricultural purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner was residing outside the state and working, hence he could not appear in this case and process under NBW has been issued against him. It is submitted that petitioner has no concern with forest land. It is further submitted that other co-accused person, namely, Kameshwar Thakur, Baso Thakur, Barku Thakur, Bali Das @ Bali @ Babloo Das, Budhan Das have been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 1504 of 2017 vide order dated 21.03.2017. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has filed ABP No. 248 of 2014 before the concerned court which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 05.04.2014. Thereafter, he kept mourn and again renewed his prayed for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was disposed of through impugned order dated

24.09.2022. Petitioner has hampered the proceeding of this case, hence petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation and also in view of the fact that earlier application for anticipatory bail of petitioner was rejected by Session Court in the year 2014 but petitioner remained calm and cool for 8 years, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order. R.K/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)