Petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a PSI case. Court rejected the bail application observing that investigation revealed involvement in grabbing money from the complainant. Prayer held rejected.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
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. 3896 of 2018
Arup Singh @ Tuntun Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
| For the Petitioner | : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For the State | : Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 2, A.P.P. |
| For the Opposite Party No. 2 | : None |
| ----- |
09/30.11.2018 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 667 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.01.2017 in A.B.A. No. 2507 of 2016 primarily on the ground that the petitioner was found in judicial custody.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant (opposite party no. 2). In fact, the informant himself had taken loan from the petitioner and with a dishonest intention not to return back the loan amount, he has instituted the complaint case against the petitioner leading to lodging of the present FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not involved in receiving Rs. 9,21,000/- from the informant (opposite party no. 2) and the story of sale of MIG Plot No. 233 is completely a manufactured one.
No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that during the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner in grabbing Rs. 9,21,000/- from the opposite party no. 2 has been found to be true and, therefore, the petitioner may not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a criminal case.
Whether the petitioner's claim of false implication affects the decision.
Arup Singh @ Tuntun Singh
The State of Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
