01Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a second application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 379/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 305(e), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 26, 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Forest Act.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that forest officials received information about wood being loaded onto a truck near a brick kiln, seized the truck and wood, and arrested two persons at the scene; the applicant was implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement.
¶ 2, 4The applicant argued that the wood had been seized from a vehicle in a forest area, not from premises in his possession, and that he had been implicated only through the co-accused’s statement.
¶ 3The State opposed bail, relying on the circumstances of the seizure and the applicant’s implication.
¶ 402Issues
i.Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case, including his implication through a co-accused’s memorandum statement and the seizure of the wood from a vehicle in a forest area.
¶ 6–703Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for anticipatory bail.
¶ 1In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the applicant’s implication and the seizure.
¶ 6The offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Forest Act were the alleged offences giving rise to the application; the Court cited no precedent or separate substantive rule concerning those offences.
¶ 1, 6Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 305Section 61Section 3
Indian Forest Act, 1927 Section 26Section 33Section 41Section 42Section 52
04Reasoning
The Court weighed the allegations against the circumstances that the applicant’s implication rested on a co-accused’s memorandum statement and that the wood had been seized from a vehicle in a forest area, rather than from premises in the applicant’s possession.
¶ 6On those grounds, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, it found anticipatory bail appropriate.
¶ 605Holding
The Court allowed the application and directed that, if arrested in connection with the specified crime, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount.
¶ 7The applicant must be available for interrogation when required, must not threaten or induce persons acquainted with the case, must not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and must attend each trial-court date until disposal of the trial.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
HIMANSHU RATHIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
