The singlejudge Bench confirmed the petitioner's provisional bail in a case involving cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The court noted that the petitioner had not misused the provisional bail and allowed the application to confirm it.
Confirmation of provisional bail granted to the petitioner on 05.02.2018 in connection with the pending case.
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
B.A. No. 401 of 2018 Pratayesh Dutta @ Pralayesh Dutta… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Basanti Dutta … … ... Opp. Parties.
-----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
----For the petitioner: Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate. For the State: Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2: None.
07/24.09.2018. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the request of both the parties, vide order dated 27.06.2018, the
matter was referred to JHALSA.
Report of the Mediator is on record, which suggests that opposite party no.2 did not appear before the Mediator, thus, the mediation has not taken off and remains non-starter.
Today counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 has taken the file from him, therefore, he is not in a position to argue the case on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
It is alleged that the petitioner by virtue of power attorney has sold the ancestral land and has not given share to the other co-sharer, thus, he has cheated the complainant.
This case arises out of complaint, which was sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station for registering an F.I.R. and investigation. The petitioner has remained in custody for about 3 months when he was released on provisional bail. There is no allegation that he has misused the privilege of provisional bail granted to him. Further this is a case involving selling of land.
Taking into consideration the nature of dispute and the fact that the petitioner has not misused the privilege of provisional bail granted to him, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner, namely, Pratayesh Dutta @ Pralayesh Dutta vide order dated 05.02.2018, in connection with Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 07 of 2017, pending in the Court of the learned C.J.M., Pakur, is hereby confirmed.
This application, stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Sharma/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to confirm the petitioner's provisional bail in a case involving cheating and property dispute.
Pratayesh Dutta @ Pralayesh Dutta
The State of Jharkhand
Basanti Dutta
ANANDA SEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
