Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in trial under multiple IPC sections alleging false implication based on a forged succession certificate. Court rejected the bail plea due to the serious nature of allegations supported by witnesses.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Further physical appearance of the I.O. is dispensed with.
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. 5209 of 2017
Suresh Munda ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suchendra Prasad, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
07/Dated: 26/09/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC.
The present case has been registered on the basis of written report given by one Umesh Singh wherein it is alleged that Bhuneshwar Mahto filed a petition for releasing the amount of the Provident Fund of his father. Thereafter Bhuneshwar Mahto filed a succession certificate which was found false in course of verification. Upon queried, Bhuneshwar Mahto disclosed that he got the succession certificate from this petitioner, Suresh Munda. On the basis of these allegation the present case has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and not named in the FIR and there is no direct allegation against him.
Learned counsel for the State as well as O.P.No.2 have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that from perusal of the case diary specially para nos.04, 12, 13, 14, 35, 25 witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
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.
Further physical appearance of the I.O. is hereby dispensed with.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
fahim/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in the cited IPC cases.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Munda
The State of Jharkhand
Umesh Singh
Anant Bijay Singh
A.B.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
