Allowed

Shetan Mal Jain v. The Union Of India Through Lucas Kujur

Jharkhand HC1 Jul 2014A.B.A./5253/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a complaint case involving alleged failure to deposit TDS and offence under IPC Sections 409/34. The court held that if the applicant surrenders within four weeks, they will be released on bail upon furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with direction to surrender within four weeks to obtain bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Shetan Mal Jain Vs The Union Of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 5253 of 2013

¶2

Shetan Mal Jain @ S.M.Jain ... ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India through Lucas Kujur, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Ranchi ... ... Opposite Party

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Mr. V.K.Trivedi, Advocates For the Union of India : Mr. J.C. to Mr. Deepak Roshan.

¶5

05/01.07.2014 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

¶6

perused the documents on record.

¶7

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in a complaint case no. 31/2001 filed under Sections 276-B r/w Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the allegation that the applicant failed to deposit TDS amount within time, 17 criminal cases were instituted against him for different period. He further submits that in 13 cases the applicant appeared before the learned trial court and he was released on bail, in two other cases this Hon’ble Court has granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not even an employee of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and thus, the offences as alleged are not attracted in the present case.

¶9

The learned J.C. to the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail however, he admits that the applicant was not an employee of Heavy Engineering Corporation rather, he was working as Finance Advisor.

¶10

-2-

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest of the applicant namely, Shetan Mal Jain @ S.M.Jain or if he surrender before the trial court within a period of four weeks from today, he would be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.R.K.Sinha, learned Special Judge, Ranchi or his successor in Complaint Case No. 31/2001.

¶12

Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX on depositing the cost by the applicant.

¶13

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶14

Tanuj/-

Shetan Mal Jain v. The Union Of India Through Lucas Kujur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shetan Mal Jain v. The Union Of India Through Lucas Kujur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Azim Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bhola Chouhan Alias Bola Nonia and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bikash Kumar Sah Alias Bikash Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Santosh Chandrawanshi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gujru Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Jha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.