Allowed

Smt Obhila Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Jun 2017A.B.A./2761/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a proprietor of M/s Rajak Enterprises, moved for anticipatory bail to avoid arrest or surrender, citing protest of a financial dispute. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a bond and two sureties, noting potential defects in cognizance due to lack of prior sanction.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail upon surrender within fifteen days, furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Smt Obhila Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B. A. No. 2761 of 2017

¶3

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHOUDHARY

¶4

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Bharati, Adv. For the Opp. Party : Addl. P.P.

¶5

02 /07.06.2017 Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No. 320 of 2016 registered under sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady. She is the proprietor of M/s Rajak Enterprises. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the letter of General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station to the Assistant P.F. Commissioner, Employees’ provident fund organization which is annexed at Annexure-4 in which the General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station has submitted that a demand draft of Rs.1,14,495/out of total outstanding due to be deposited to the P.P.F. Organization of Rs.8,86,216/-. It is further submitted that Annexure-4 clearly depicts the reason why the amount was not given and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. Further, the learned counsel submits that in the absence of sanction from Central Provident Fund Commission the cognizance in the case is bad in law.

¶8

Learned Add. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Considering the submissions of the counsels and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, she shall be released on bail on furnishing

¶10

bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ramgarh in connection with Patratu P.S. Case No. 320 of 2016 (G. R. No. 1347 of 2016 ) subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶11

(A.K. Choudhary, J.)

¶12

Animesh/Gunjan-

Smt Obhila Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Obhila Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shani Ram Nayak Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Mahli Vs The State Of Jharkhand