Allowed

Ashok Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Aug 2019A.B.A./1639/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to Ashok Prasad in a complaint case alleging cheating and violations of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to specific bail bond conditions and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted privilege of anticipatory bail to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender, furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

Ashok Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1639 of 2019

¶2

Ashok Prasad … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jageshwar Dangi … Opposite Parties ------

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate ------

¶5

Order No.07 Dated- 26.08.2019

¶6

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.887 of 2017 registered under sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act.

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs.2,50,000/from the informant-opposite party no2 for solemnization of marriage of his son with the daughter of the informant-opposite party no.2 and he is not returning the same. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false as the petitioner has not taken any money whatsoever from the complainant. It is next submitted that as the marriage between the son of the petitioner and the daughter of the informant did not materialize, hence, to pressurize the petitioner this false case has been foisted against him and there is no chit of paper to show any entrustment of money to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but the opposite party no.2 fairly submits that the complainant has no document to show any entrustment of money to the petitioner.

¶10

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Chatra, in connection with Complaint Case No.887 of 2017 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶11

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶12

Gunjan-

Ashok Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Prasad 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

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Banti Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Dhobi Alias Sunil Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parwez Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand