Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4354 of 2015 --- Naresh Singh, S/o late Doman Singh, Resident of Village-Morbey, P.S. & P.O. Majhiao, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand .………. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P. --- 4/6.4.2016 Heard the parties. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Forest Case being C.F-317/2013 dated 21.09.2013 (vide Crime Report No. 38P), registered for the offence punishable under Sections 33/52(a) and 64 of the Indian Forest Act, 1989 ( Bihar Amendment). The prosecution report suggests that in course of patrolling at Jatro Banjari Forest, the informant noticed 30 to 40 persons were involved in stone breaking within preserved forest area. Two persons were apprehended and various equipments were seized. The apprehended accused persons had confessed their guilt and on their confession it has come to light that they were involved in such act under the direction of the petitioner, who was a contractor. Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has referred to Notification of the State Government dated 2.9.1953, which had declared the forest as protected forest. He has referred to Section 30 (b) of the Indian Forest Act and has submitted that after expiry of 30 years, the protected forest ceases to be closed and in such circumstances since the foundation of institution of the case has been demolished, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that in terms of section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, the Collector shall cause a translation into the local vernacular of every notification issued under section 30 to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighborhood of the forest comprised in the notification. It has also been submitted that the alleged confessional statement of co-accused persons naming the petitioner does not bear the signature of forest officials who had taken such confessional -2- statement and on the ground, which has been enumerated above, the petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that on similar allegations, the petitioner has been made accused in three cases and therefore being a habitual offender, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apt to refer to section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, which is quoted herein below:-
"9. Protected forests.— (1) The 1 State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the provisions of this Chapter applicable to any forest-land or waste-land which is not included in a reserved forest but which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled. (2) The forest-land and waste-lands comprised in any such notification shall be called a “protected forest”. (3) No such notification shall be made unless the nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest-land or waste-land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded at a survey or settlement, or in such other manner as the State Government thinks sufficient. Every such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved: Provided that, if, in the case of any forest-land or waste land, the State Government thinks that such inquiry and record are necessary, but that they will occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government, the State Government may, pending such inquiry and record, declare such land to be a protected forest, but so as not to abridge or affect any existing rights of individuals or communities. Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act gives the State Government power to issue notification reserving trees etc. and same is extracted here.
30. Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc.—The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,— (a) declare any trees or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification; (b) declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks fit, and that the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such terms, provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the right suspended in the portion so closed; or (c) prohibit, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process, or removal of, any forest-produce in any such forest, and the breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in any such forest". -3- Perusal of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act suggests that any portion of the forest area not included in a reserved forest and by which the Government has proprietary right can be declared to be protected forest by virtue of a notification. Sub Section (a) of Section 30 gives the power to the State Government to declare any tress or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification. Sub Section (b) of Section 30 gives power to the State Government to declare any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term not exceeding thirty years and the rights under such portion shall be suspended during such terms provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the right suspended in the portion so closed. A plain reading of Section 30 of the Act suggests that a protected area of such forest can be declared by the State Government by virtue of a Notification to be closed for a period not exceeding 30 years. Section 29 of the Act suggests that once a forest land or waste land is declared as a protected forest, the character of the forest continues to remain as that of a protected forest until and unless the same is de-notified by the State Government. Such circumstances, therefore, cannot give any benefit to the petitioner and which has been indicated in the offence report about the confession given by the accused persons. In the counter affidavit, statement has been given about the previous involvements of the petitioner, who is involved in C.F. Case No. 136 of 2014, C.F. Case No. 135 of 2014 and C.F. Case No. 315 of 2014, which reveals that the petitioner is a habitual offender under the Forest Act. In view of the discussions made herein above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence his prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly rejected. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/