This order denies the prayer for anticipatory bail filed by Jaya Kumari and Jitendra Kumar, proprietors of Narayan Seva Sadan, who faced arrest in a case alleging forgery and cheating related to Smart Card fraud and insurance claims.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected; no anticipatory bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 623 of 2014
02/ 10.09.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrests in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 257 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 3044 of 2013, for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners are the wife and husband and they are the proprietors of one Narayan Seva Sadan and there is allegation in the FIR that in the said Narayan Seva Sadan, the persons below the poverty line were treated on the basis of the Smart Cards, issued to them. There is allegation against the petitioners that on the basis of forged and fabricated Smart Cards, the treatments were shown to be done in the said hospital and the money was taken through Reliance Insurance Company. In some cases, even the Smart Cards were not given to the beneficiaries, rather the card was directly given to Narayan Seva Sadan and without there being any treatment of the beneficiaries, the money was withdrawn by the Narayan Seva Sadan.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and has accordingly, prayed for anticipatory bail submitting that the petitioner Jaya Kumari, is only a housewife and the entire business is being run by the petitioner Jitendra Kumar. It is also submitted from the case diary that one witness who is the employee of the Narayan Seva Sadan had stated that the money was withdrawn in connivance with the doctor of the said hospital.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. In the facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Jaya Kumari and Jitendra Kumar, who are the proprietors of the Narayan Seva Sadan. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
Amitesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners who are apprehending arrest in a criminal case alleging forgery and cheating.
Whether the petitioners, being proprietors of an institution, are eligible for anticipatory bail in the given circumstances.
Jaya Kumari
Jitendra Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
