Akshay Kumar @ Deepak Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect nos. 4, 5(e), 9 (i) to (iii), as per Stamp Reporting dated 26.08.2020, have not been removed, which he undertakes to remove within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard, as it is a regular bail application of the petitioner who is in custody since 12.05.2020.

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the instant bail application on merits, but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defect(s) within 30 days after physical court starts.

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defect(s).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278/2019, for the offence registered under Sections 379, 385, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 33 / 34 of Forest Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier for the same occurrence, a complaint case was filed by the Forest Officer vide Complaint Case No.2508/2019 in which this petitioner has been granted bail vide order dated 16.03.2020 passed in B.A. No.1122/2020 but for the same occurrence, another F.I.R. has been lodged, which is the present F.I.R. as Chaipur P.S. Case No. 278/2019 registered under Sections 379, 385, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 33/44 of Indian Forest Act against four named accused persons with regard to illegal cutting of 156 Khair tree. It is alleged that a false document of agreement has been shown to justify the act, though petitioner has been granted bail for the same occurrence, but again, he is in custody since 12.05.2020, as such, he may be enlarged on bail, as he is a labourer earning daily wages for his livelihood.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that since the complaint case was not filed before this Court and in the present petition, it is very difficult to ascertain that both cases relate to the same occurrence or not.

Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the seizure list, which is at page no.14 of the petition, which shows dated 31.10.2019.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that learned court below has also considered this aspect while passing the impugned order stating therein at the second last para of impugned order that petitioner was granted bail in another case, so the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not well founded, as such, both the cases have not amalgamated together, otherwise the court below have amalgamated both the cases together.

Considering the rival submission of the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to bring on record the Complaint Case No.2508/2019 and the order granting bail.

In the meantime, State counsel is also directed to file detail counter affidavit and the S.O.P. issued in this regard by the Department.

State counsel may take assistance from Principal Secretary Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand as well as D.F.O., Palamu in this regard. The counter affidavit must be filed with a period of four weeks.

Put up this case after four weeks.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jhakhand as well as D.F.O., Palamu.