The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application in a cheating case, ruling that the complainant and witnesses supported the opposite party and the petitioner was falsely implicated.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is 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. 6715 of 2017
Surendra Pandit ….. Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.
--------- 06/Dated: 01/05/2018
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 262 of 2015, registered under Sections 406, 420 of the I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has further submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the fact that complainant in his S.A. and other witnesses have supported the case of opposite party no. 2, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Sunil/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer for anticipatory bail in a cheating case should be admitted given the lack of specific allegations and absence of criminal antecedents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Pandit
The State of Jharkhand
Sarfuddin
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
