The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving IPC offences, citing the nature of allegations against him.
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. 426 of 2018
Gyan Prakash Singh ….. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Opp. Party ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mrs. Banani Verma, Adv.
06/Dated: 11/07/2018
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 468, 470, 471, 420, 406, 34 of the I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R, and the petitioner was the authorized signatory of the company to produce documents and that is the only reason that the petitioner was implicated in the instant case.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
In view of the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Fahim/
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the instant case.
Gyan Prakash Singh
The State of Jharkhand
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
