Allowed

Sanjeev Chitlangia v. Union Of India Through Cbi

Jharkhand HC13 Nov 2014A.B.A./2031/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble Mr. Justice H.C. Mishra granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the infamous medicine scam case conditioned upon the deposit of the alleged loss amount in State Treasury along with surrender and furnishing of a bail bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned upon deposit of Rs. 2,71,268/-, surrender, and furnishing of bail bond with two sureties.

Sanjeev Chitlangia Vs Union Of India Through Cbi — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A No. 2031 of 2014

¶3

¶4

Sanjeev Chitlangia .… Petitioner -VersusUnion of India through C.B.I. ..... Opposite Party

¶5

------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

¶6

------For the Petitioner : : M/s. Indrajit Sinha For the C.B.I : : M/s. Md. Mokhtar Khan, A.P.P. -------

¶7

2/ 13.11.2014. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

¶8

C.B.I.

¶9

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with RC11(A)/2009-AHD-R, for the alleged offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(c) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶10

Though the case relates to infamous medicine scam in this State, but it appears from the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I., that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the owner of the M/S Kraft which had supplied mattresses and bed sheets etc. for supply to the hospitals. It is alleged that the supply were made at the exorbitant price causing pecuniary loss to the State to the tune of Rs.2,71,268/-.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the other co-accused persons have been granted regular bail. It is also submitted that though there is allegation against the petitioner of making the supply at higher rates and the petitioner challenges the same, but the petitioner at this stage is ready to refund the amount involved in the matter. Learned counsel has accordingly, prayed for anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory

¶13

bail.

¶14

In the facts of this case, if the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.2,71,268/- in the State Treasury and produces the proof thereof and surrenders in the Court below, the petitioner shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi, in connection with, RC11(A)/2009-AHD-R, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

(H.C.Mishra, J.)

¶16

D.S.

Sanjeev Chitlangia v. Union Of India Through Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Chitlangia v. Union Of India Through Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bodhani Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Suresh Kumar Sao Alias Suresh Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Satun Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Parmanand Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Surendra Sao and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand