Dismissed

Anil Kumar Das Alias Guddujan v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Apr 2014A.B.A./4656/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by Anil Kumar Das in a criminal case for cheating. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the court held that since a warrant of arrest had already been issued against the petitioner, he was not entitled to anticipatory bail and was directed to surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner directed to surrender to seek regular bail.

Anil Kumar Das Alias Guddujan Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4656 of 2013

¶2

Anil Kumar Das @ Guddujan

¶3

.... ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

¶6

.... ... Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶9

------

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Appu, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate

¶11

¶12

Order No. 03 ------ Dated 10^th April, 2014

¶13

Apprehending arrest in connection with C.P. Case No.1214 of 2010, filed under Sections 406/504 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail.

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that the informant Sudhir Chandra Mandal has alleged that the accused had approached the complainant to install a tower in the land of the complainant and the complainant had given Rs. 40,000/- to the accused and the accused acknowledged the receipt of the money. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused neither installed nor returned the money to the complainant inspite of repeated requests. Instead of returning the money, the accused is alleged to have threatened the complainant with dire consequences. On the complaint lodged by the complainant, a case was registered as C.P. Case No. 1214 of 2010.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vikram Sinha appearing for the petitioner-accused, Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. M.B.

¶16

Lal learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. has been issued against the accused-petitioner and since the warrant of arrest has been issued, as per the judgment reported in 2012(4) Crimes 66 (SC), the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submitted that warrant was issued against the petitioner only subsequent to the filing of the application seeking anticipatory bail and, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

¶19

In C.P. Case No.1214 of 2010 registered under Sections 406/504 of the Indian Penal Code, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner-accused and warrant of arrest has been issued. In Para 10 of the judgment reported in 2012(4) Crimes 66 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;

¶20

“10.From these materials and informant, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as “absconder”. Normally, when the accused is “absconding” and declared as a “proclaimed offender”, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.”

¶21

Following the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner-accused, the petitioner-accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail.

¶22

(R. Banumathi, C.J.)

¶23

Birendra/Brajesh

Anil Kumar Das Alias Guddujan v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Das Alias Guddujan v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritam Kahar Alias Preetam Kahar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sanichar Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

MD Isteyaque Alias MD Ishtayaque Qayum Alias MD Ihhteyaque Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Tukan Saw and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ranjeet Sen and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Antu Pandey Alias Anant Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand