Anticipatory bail application dismissed against a Revenue Karamchari accused of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy, despite co-accused grant of bail.
Petitioner's anticipatory bail application dismissed.
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. 2766 of 2017
Sunil Kumar Mahli ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party.
-----CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
-----For the Petitioner :Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate. For the State :Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, A.P.P.
09/13.11.2017: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 420, 408 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner is a Revenue Karamchari. It is alleged that he is indulged in activities of regularly mutating Gairmazarua land and in helping the persons to get compensation after acquisition of the said land for construction of the Railway line. It is alleged that after the compensation was paid to the Raiyats, the petitioner demanded and received huge amount as bribe. In fact, the case diary also shows that in his account a huge amount has been deposited.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Suresh Mahto, who was posted as Amin, has been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 2715 of 2017.
Be that as it may, in view of the allegation made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Mahli. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Sharma/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under sections 420, 408, and 120(B) IPC.
Whether the fact that a similarly situated co-accused was granted bail is a relevant factor in the present case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Mahli
The State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
