Umesh Kumar Chouhan v. the State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
A single bench rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, noting the nature of allegations, and advised filing a regular bail application if required.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner advised to file regular bail application.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 621 of 2018
Umesh Kumar Chouhan ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Prasant Kr., Adv. ---------
06/Dated: 18/09/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as Umesh Kumar Chouhan and Yashpal Kumar Chouhan is the same person and the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever alleged in the FIR.
Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 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.
However, if so advised, petitioner may surrender before the court below and file regular bail application and the court below shall consider on its own merit.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail in case under Sections 406, 420 IPC?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Umesh Kumar Chouhan
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
- respondent
Anr.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- A.B.A./621/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court