Indranath Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with OCR Case No. 179 of 2015 instituted under Sections 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Sections 8, 9, 10 & 13 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

It is alleged that petitioner being owner of saw mill was found indulged in illegal operation of saw mill and from the place of occurrence, wooden logs were seized. On demand, no valid document was produced.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. No wooden logs were recovered from the alleged premise of Saw Mill. Petitioner is an old aged person of 76 years and is suffering from several old age ailments. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

It appears that it is a complaint case and there is no requirement for custodial trial of the petitioner. Hence, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this anticipatory bail application is disposed off.

Petitioner is directed to seek regular bail before concerned trial court which shall be disposed off on the same day in strict compliance of guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2021(10) SCC 773.