Allowed

Madhup Kumar And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2017A.B.A./3956/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order grants anticipatory bail to two petitioners apprehending arrest in a case involving alleged forgery and cheating related to seized truckload of stone chips, directing deposit of security and furnishing of surety.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each cash security, furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to be released on bail upon arrest or surrende

Madhup Kumar And Anr. 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. 3956 of 2017

¶3

Madhup Kumar @ Madhyup Kumar 2. Md. Munna … Petitioners

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶5

04 /18.07.2017 Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 42 of 2017 (G.R. No. 275 of 2017) registered under sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 54 of J.M.M.C. Rule, 2004.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 is the owner and petitioner no. 2 was the driver, on the date of occurrence, of the truck bearing registration no. JH 05AB – 1994 which was seized by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, for transporting 5/8 stone chips on the basis of forged challan. He further submits that in the F.I.R itself, it has been mentioned that the stone chips belongs to one Manoj and his mobile number has been also mentioned in the F.I.R. The petitioners have got nothing to do with the stone chips. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further, submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioners –Madhup Kumar @ Madhyup Kumar and Md. Munna

¶10

be admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- each and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, in connection with Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 42 of 2017 (G.R. No. 275 of 2017), subject to the condition that they will cooperate in the investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶11

Sonu-

Madhup Kumar And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhup Kumar And Anr. 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

Laxman Ganjhu Alias Kohram Jee Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Arbind Mahto And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bajrang Pahan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Rajeshwar Upadhyay Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jafar Raja Alias Jafirul Haque Alias Jafirul Haq Alias Jafar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand