Allowed

Arun Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Aug 2016B.A./4071/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application relating to charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the High Court of Jharkhand, noting the nature of the commercial dispute and biblical reasoning, directed the release of the petitioner on bail with a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Arun Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4071 of 2016

¶2

Arun Kumar son of late Narayan Pandit, resident of Maner Gali Jatra Maidan, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi......... Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand and Anr. ... … Opp. Parties.

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap , Advocate. For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶6

07/12.08.2016: Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for opp. Party No. 2 as well as the State.

¶7

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 5934 of 2015, for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken money from the informant and had purchased a vehicle in the name of his friend, when there was understanding that the vehicle will be purchased in the name of the complainant. He further submits that it has been alleged that the monthly profit was not being given to the informant as such, he has cheated the informant. Learned senior counsel also submits that out of rupees three lacs, a sum of rupees one lac has been returned and this case has been filed to recover the balance amount of rupees two lacs. He further submits that the dispute arose out of a commercial transaction for which, no criminal case can be instituted.

¶9

The counsel appearing for the informant submits that after taking loan from the Bank, rupees three lacs was given to the petitioner to purchase the vehicle, but the petitioner has purchased the vehicle in the name of his friend, which was not permissible. He further submits that the petitioner is deprived of her dues, which she is entitled to.

¶10

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶11

Regard being had to the fact that there is a business transaction between the parties and the dispute relates to transaction and accounting, and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 24.02.2016, I feel inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, 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 the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 5934 of 2015.

¶12

(ANANDA SEN , J)-

¶13

Anu/-

Arun Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar 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

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

Shyamal Chandra Mandal Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I

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