Patna High Court
SATYANARAYAN SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted in the present case despite the cognizable nature of the offence, subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Rohtas district, were named in an FIR for allegedly cutting trees in violation of Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (with Bihar Amendment 1989) and for the purpose of confiscation under Section 52. They contended that the FIR was based solely on hearsay, that the offence is compoundable under Section 68 of the Act, and that they were prepared to compound the matter but feared arrest. The State opposed anticipatory bail, highlighting the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents, though none related to forest offences. The Court examined whether anticipatory bail could be granted for a cognizable, non‑bailable but compoundable forest offence and considered the relevance of past convictions. It ordered that anticipatory bail be granted to all three petitioners, subject to a bail bond of Rs 30,000 and compliance with conditions under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Security and Surrender (B.N.S.S.) Act, 2023, provided they surrender within four weeks and are not absconding in other pending cases.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a cognizable, non‑bailable offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which is compoundable.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents, unrelated to forest law, affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether compounding of the offence requires any special permission under the Forest Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 482(2)
- Indian Forest Act, 1927 — s. 33, 52, 68
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Forest Act
- compoundable offence
- cognizable offence
- criminal antecedents
- bail bond
- forest offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5068 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2025 Thana- FOREST (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. SATYANARAYAN SINGH Son of Late Sudarshan Singh R/o Village -
Rehari, P.S.- Badahari, District - Rohtas.
2. Sunil Chaudhary @ Sunil Kumar Son of Rameshwar Chaudhary R/o Village
and P.S.- Badahari, District - Rohtas.
3. Vishnu Dayal Singh @ Vishun Dayal Singh Son of Late Jagdish Singh @
Ram Byas Chaudhary R/o Village - Rehari, P.S.- Badahari, District - Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishwajeet Kr. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Forest Case No. 04 of 2025 (4F/2025) lodged
on 01.02.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 33 of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act No. 16 of 1927) with Bihar
Amendment 1989 along with allegation under section 52 of the
said act.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
three named accused persons (all the present petitioners) with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5068 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
allegation of cutting trees and the said trees have been ceased
for the purpose of confiscation under section 52 of the Forest
Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that the said offence is cognizable and non-
bailable, though, punishment prescribed under section 33 of the
said act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months or with a fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or with
both. Counsel further submits that from the bare reading of the
FIR, it become crystal clear that the name of all the three
petitioners has come in the FIR by virtue of suspicion only,
because no one saw the alleged occurrence. The only material is
hearsay against the petitioners. Counsel submits that only aspect
of the matter which is against the petitioners is their criminal
antecedents. The petitioner no.1 has three criminal antecedents,
the petitioner no.3 has two criminal antecedents, whereas, the
petitioner no.2 has no criminal antecedent. He submits that all
those antecedents are not relating to Forest Act, rather, relating
to I.P.C. and Arms Act. Counsel submits that under the Forest
Act, 1927, section 33 is compoundable. He submits that section
68 of the Forest Act is very categorical and talks about the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5068 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
compoundability of the offence. He further submits that there
are different offences for which permission is required for
compounding. But he submits that the present offence does not
required any permission for compounding. He further submits
that the petitioners are ready to compounding this case, but they
have apprehension of arrest when they shall appear for the
compounding. It is due to this reason, learned counsel for the
petitioners submit that they be granted anticipatory bail, so that
they with the help of lawyer shall appear before the court and
pursue for closing of the case by way of the remedy available to
them under the Forest Act.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that
the petitioner no.1 has three criminal antecedents and petitioner
no.3 has two criminal antecedents, whereas, petitioner no.2 has
no criminal antecedent. But, he fairly submits that those
antecedents are not relating to Forest Act.
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the above named petitioners be released on
anticipatory bail as well as on being satisfied by the Trial Court
that the petitioner nos.1 & 3 are not absconding in any of the
cases pending against them whose details are mentioned below,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5068 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
in the event of arrest or surrender before the Trial Court within a
period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as mentioned in Section
2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of C.J.M.,
Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with Forest Case No. 04 of
2025 (4F/2025), subject to the conditions as laid down U/s
482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
7. Pending cases against the petitioner no.1 are as
follows:-
(I)- Karghar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2014
(II)- Karghar P.S. Case No. 115 of 2016
(III)- Karghar P.S. Case No. 356 of 2021
Pending cases against the petitioner no.3 are as
follows:-
(I)- Karghar P.S. Case No. 115 of 2026
(II)- Karghar P.S. Case No. 356 of 2021.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…