Sanaur Barsi Alias Sonu Barsi Alias Sanaur Warsi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Jharkhand HCA.B.A./4181/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4181…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4181…
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. 4181 of 2015 Sanaur Barsi @ Sonu Barsi @ Sanaur Warsi.... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & another … Opposite Parties --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar --- Order No. 02 Dated 4th April 2016
Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned for the opposite party No. 2.
Petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 177 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned SDJM, Koderma.
The allegation made in the F.I.R. reveals that on the offer made by the petitioner to sell stone boulders to the crusher of the complainant, an advance amount of Rs. one lakh was given to the petitioner and subsequently Rs. 10,000/- was given in cash through Md. Kalimuddin to the petitioner. The petitioner had supplied stone boulder worth Rs. 1,82,700/-. Subsequently it has been alleged that on the inducement of the petitioner for making him the partner, the complainant has given Rs. 2,77,000 to the petitioner. The complainant had also deposited Rs. 2,52,000/- in the account of nephew of petitioner on his instruction. The complainant was cheated by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,06,000/-.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire dispute arose from the business transactions and in fact there is no agreement with respect to making the complainant a partner in the stone crusher business between the petitioner and the complainant. It has been submitted that the documents which have been filed by the opposite party No. 2 with respect to monetary transaction are forged documents, as the petitioner disputes the signature made on them.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has referred to a document which was an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the complainant and submitted that the petitioner offered to sell stone boulder to the opposite party No. 2 and for which he paid Rs. one lakh to the petitioner as an advance. It has further been submitted that the
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 IPC.
Whether the dispute arose from business transactions with forged documents.
Sanaur Barsi
The State of Jharkhand
Opposite Party No. 2
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court