Allowed

Suparna Paul v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2018B.A./6290/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the bail application of Suparna Paul, an accused charged with cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court ordered her release on bail subject to depositing the misappropriated sum and furnishing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by depositing Rs. 10,000 bond, two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, and depositing the misappropriated sum of Rs. 2,20,000.

Suparna Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 6290 of 2018

¶3

Suparna Paul …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party(s) ------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶5

-----FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha (4), Advocate FOR THE STATE : A.P.P. ------

¶6

10/17.12.2018

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for

¶8

bail.

¶9

The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471/34 of the IPC.

¶10

This is a case where a sum of Rs. 2, 20,000/- was defalcated by the accused persons on the assurance that same would be invested in different funds and would be returned with interest. Complainant did not receive the certificate nor received any money. Thereafter forged and fake certificates were handed over to the complainant for which this case has been lodged against the petitioner.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the director of the M/s Paul & Associates Trade Company Private Limited and entire money was received by the agent Madhavi Ghosh and the same was misappropriated by the agent for which petitioner could not be blamed.

¶12

After going through the records, I find that Madhavi Ghosh has been granted bail on the ground that she was merely an employee of M/s Paul & Associates Trade Company Private Limited and this petitioner happens to be the director of the said company.

¶13

On query, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not filed any case against Madhavi Ghosh.

¶14

Considering the fact that petitioner is a lady and has remained in custody for more than two and half years, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Telco (Govindpur) Police Station Case No. 486 of 2015 (G.R. No. 3416 of 2015), subject to the condition that petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- before the court below which will be subject to the final outcome of the trial.

¶15

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶16

anjali/ C.P 3

Suparna Paul v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suparna Paul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nand Kishore Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gautam Thapa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamlesh Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ruplal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand