Disposed

Shyamal Chandra Mandal v. The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

Jharkhand HC12 Aug 2016A.B.A./1861/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted limited anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing him to surrender within three weeks. Upon surrender, the trial court was authorized to grant regular bail by fixing a bond of Rs. 15,000 and imposing strict conditions regarding investigation cooperation and witness conduct.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to surrender within three weeks; authorizing trial court to enlarge on bail of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties subject to conditions.

Shyamal Chandra Mandal Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through… — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 1861 of 2016

¶2

Shyamal Chandra Mandal …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the C.B.I : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate ---------

¶3

08/Dated: 30/08/2016

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶5

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶6

The prosecution case is that the co-accused Deepak Kumar, the then Inspector of Post Office, Jamtara Sub-Division, Jamtara during the year 2011 entered into criminal conspiracy with the petitioner and other coaccused persons and in pursuance thereof, petitioner was appointed as Gramin Dak Sewak Mail deliver at Mejhia Branch Post Office, fraudulently on the basis of fake and forged marksheet certificate of matriculation of the petitioner and bogus verification report of co-accused Mohan Lal Tiwary, the then Overseer, Mail Jamtara Post Office.

¶7

It further appears that C.B.I after completion of investigation submitted final form bearing Final Form No. 1 of 2015 on 30.06.2015 and the final form reveals the material collected against the petitioner which shows that the petitioner was born on 24.01.1970 as per written and signed declaration of Shyamal Chandra Mandal, as per his admikt card of Matriculation of JBC High School, Jamtara. Latter on he had fabricated and assumed new date of birth as 24.01.1990. Shyamal Chandra Mandal was student of JBC High School, Jamtara and had passed Class-X examination in 3^rd division in the year 1989 conducted by Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, Shyamal Chandra Mandal was never a student of vaidic Sahitya Sanskrit High School, Atasarai, Nalanda at any point of time either as regular or private student and have not applied, appeared or passed Madhyama Annual Examination 2006 conducted by Bihar Sanskrit Shikshta Board, Patna. That this petitioner in conspiracy with coaccused persons and by submitting false declaration had arranged Madhyama certificate mentioning his date of birth as 24.01.1990 and altered as 24.10.1970 and had dishonestly & fraudulently got arranged false & fake Admit Card, Mark-sheet, School leaving certificate and certificate of Madhyama regarding securing of 88.42% marks in

¶8

Madhyama Annual Examination, 2006 conducted by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna showing himself as student of Vaidic Sahitya Sanskrit High School, Atasarai Nalanda knowing that he had neither studied nor appeared in said school board. In furtherance of the conspiracy, this petitioner had applied and got appointment as GDS Mail deliver at Mejhia B.O and worked there during 16.05.2011 to 28.01.2015 and drawn salary and emoluments amounting to Rs. 3,34,366/- and thereby caused a huge loss to the Department of Post.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Investigation has been completed and final form has been submitted during the course of investigation whenever he was summoned by the I.O and he cooperated in the investigation and there is no allegation that he had tried to influence the witnesses so taking all this case learned Special Judge of the C.B.I has taken cognizance under Section 120-B read with Section 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, hence petitioner deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

On the other hand learned counsel for the C.B.I has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that prayer for anticipatory bail of the other co-accused, Jaipal Kumar and Deepak Kumar in A.B.A. No. 2030 of 2015 and A.B.A. No. 1100 of 2015 have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2015. It is also submitted that this petitioner caused a huge loss of Rs.3,34,366/- to the Department of Post.

¶11

Be that as it may that investigation has already been completed and cognizance has been taken and during course of the investigation petitioner have cooperated in the investigation and petitioner has also lost his job, he is directed to surrender in the Court below within three weeks from the date of this order and in the event of his arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, CBI-Cum-Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 01(A) of 2015-D, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C, subject to the further condition that petitioner will co-operate with the investigation and he will appear before the trial Court as and when directed and not to try the influence and gain over the witnesses, failing which the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner.

¶12

Let a copy of the order be sent to the trial Court.

¶13

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶14

Satayendra/

Shyamal Chandra Mandal v. The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamal Chandra Mandal v. The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

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

Rajnish Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ram Krishna Das Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. And

Rahul Kumar Jha Vs Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University And

Paras Nath Sahu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Prasad Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Anr.