Allowed

Manoj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhandthrough Cbi

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2016B.A./2166/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, accused of offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act in a fraud case involving Bokaro Steel Ltd., sought bail. High Court deemed him falsely implicated as an employee and ordered release on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of the like amount each.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhandthrough Cbi — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 2166 of 2016 Manoj Kumar Singh ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. .…. … Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate --------

¶2

03/ 11.04.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶3

The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in connection with R.C. Case No. 10(A) of 2013-D.

¶4

The case relates to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Bokaro Steel Ltd., Bokaro under the purported supply of medicines etc., for distribution in the medical camps organised by the Company in the different parts of States of Jharkhand and Bihar under the Corporate Social Responsibility. The petitioner has been made accused being the employee of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas, and it is alleged that the amount of Rs. 29,51,531/- was fraudulently withdrawn by M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, only being an employee of the firm, and two partners of the said firm have also been made accused and one of them, viz., Atendra Kumar Singh has been granted bail by order dated 9.3.2016 in B.A. No. 1503 of 2016, upon the condition that he shall deposit the half of the amount, i.e., Rs. 14,19,970/- to the Bokaro Steel Limited. It is also submitted that the bail application of the other partner is pending. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the similar circumstance the other employee of the said firm has already been granted bail by order dated 24.11.2015 in B.A. No. 8613 of 2015.

¶6

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail, but it is admitted that the petitioner is only an employee of M/s. Red Cross Distributors, Chas.

¶7

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to 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 learned Special Judge-cum- Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad, in connection with R.C. Case No. 10(A) of 2013-D.

¶8

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶9

Amitesh/-

Manoj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhandthrough Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhandthrough Cbi

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

Kaneeza Khatoon Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dinesh Alias Dinu Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Law Kush Paswan Alias Lawkush Kumar Paswan Alias Doctor Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anup Guria Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bandhu Shukla Alias Ajit Kumar Shukla Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Das Alias Ashok Kumar Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand