Allowed

Arun Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC30 Oct 2018B.A./5418/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirmed the petitioner's provisional bail in a criminal case involving cheque dishonour and financial dispute over a crusher machine sale. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the outstanding balance in installments with the Lower Court, stipulating that the amount be kept in an interest-bearing account, distinct from the trial outcome.

What did the court decide?

Provisional bail confirmed; directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 within one month and balance within 45 days via interest-bearing account with lower court.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5418 of 2018

¶2

----

¶3

Arun Kumar Singh … Petitioner

¶4

-versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶7

… Opposite Parties

¶8

----

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶10

---For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate ----

¶11

4/ 30.10.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Sahibganj (M) Police Station Case No.85 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.457 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sahibganj.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and informant are cousin. He submits that the dispute relates to sale and purchase of crusher machine.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) has been paid by the petitioner, after the date of agreement, i.e., after 5^th April.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the opposite party No.2 acknowledges payment of Rs.50,000/- and submits that Rs.4,00,000/- is yet to be paid.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is ready to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh), but, in installments.

¶17

Petitioner is on provisional bail granted by this Court and there is no allegation that the petitioner has in any way misused the privilege of provisional bail.

¶18

Taking into consideration the submission of the parties and nature of dispute, which is prima facie claim of sell price, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13.07.2018 in connection with Sahibganj (M) Police Station Case No.85 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.457 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, is hereby confirmed. Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶19

-: 2 :-

¶20

(Rupees Two Lakh) before the learned Court below within one month from today and balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) will be deposited within 45 days thereafter. It is made clear that the said deposit will be without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. Further, it is directed that the said amount will be kept in an interest bearing account by the learned Court below and will be subject to the final decision of the Trial. This application, thus, stands allowed.

¶21

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶22

Kumar/Cp-03

Arun Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheshwar Yadav Alias Sudhesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxmi Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamal Yadav Alias Kamlesh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Shahzaman Alias Chhote Khan Alias Chotu Khan Vs Union of India through Ncb

Bhaglu Singh Alias Bhoglu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahavir Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand