Allowed

Vivek Kumar Bansal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2019A.B.A./1769/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of cheating and forgery, holding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature involving non-payment for transportation services. The court ruled that they are eligible for bail upon arrest or surrender within four weeks, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; upon arrest/surrender within four weeks, release on bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each.

Vivek Kumar Bansal Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1769 of 2019

¶2

Vivek Kumar Bansal 2. Harsh Kumar Bansal … Petitioners Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand 2. Amit Kumar Malhan … Opposite Parties

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. D.K. Chakravorty, Advocate ------

¶7

Order No.07 Dated- 18.06.2019

¶8

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.3602 of 2017 registered under sections 420/406/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶10

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the director of B.M.W. Iron & Steel Industries Limited has engaged Guru Road Lines of which the complainant is the proprietor for transportation work in the year 2017 and are not paying the sum of Rs.10,73,237/- to the complainant which is due to the informant towards the cost of the transportation work done. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false and in the year 2017 for the period of which the alleged amount is claimed by the complainant, the B.M.W. Iron & Steel Industries Limited never engaged the Guru Road Lines for transportation work and during the relevant time the B.M.W. Iron & Steel Industries Limited engaged J.K. Transport for transportation work and payment for the relevant period has been made by B.M.W. Iron & Steel Industries Limited to the J.K. Transport and the B.M.W. Iron & Steel Industries Limited does not owe any money of the complainant or his proprietary concern-Guru Road Lines. It is

¶11

next submitted that the dispute is at best a civil dispute and there is no allegation of any dishonest intention of the petitioners at the time of alleged transportation work done by the complainant or his proprietary concern-Guru Road Lines for them. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl. P.P. assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

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 petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Complaint Case No.3602 of 2017 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Sonu/Gunjan-

Vivek Kumar Bansal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Bansal 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

Tiran Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Jaykumar Pathare Alias Sunil Pathare Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsuddin Sai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indra Bhushan Prasad Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanchita Bhakat Vs the State of Jharkhand