Allowed

Sumit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2019A.B.A./195/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating case. The court directed surrender, deposit of ad interim victim compensation, and furnishing of a bond with conditions regarding cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail conditioned on surrender within four weeks, deposit of Rs.9,60,000 as compensation, and furnishing of bail bond with two sureties.

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.195 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Sumit Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand .... .... 2. Rajiv Kumar Mangal .... Opposite Parties

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Samanta, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate

¶7

Order No.05 Dated- 01.04.2019

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.183 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.757 of 2018 instituted under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that from the rolling mill of the petitioner, part of the stolen article of about 17.620 metric tons out of the total stolen article of M.S. Ingot weighing 39.920 metric tons, was recovered and rest has been used by the petitioner in his rolling mill. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner purchased the said seized M.S. Ingot from M/s. Lall Steel Private Limited. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to pay ad interim victim compensation of Rs.9,60,000/-(Rupees nine lakh sixty thousand) without prejudice to his defence in this case in favour of the opposite party No.2 namely- Rajiv Kumar Mangal. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, the petitioner will be enlarged on bail on depositing a

¶13

demand draft of Rs.9,60,000/- (Rupees nine lakh sixty thousand) as ad interim victim compensation without prejudice to his defence in this case drawn in favour of the opposite party No.2 namely- Rajiv Kumar Mangal and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.183 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.757 of 2018 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶14

In case the petitioner deposits the demand draft of Rs.9,60,000/- (Rupees nine lakh sixty thousand), the court below is directed to issue notice to the opposite party No.2 namely- Rajiv Kumar Mangal and on his proper identification, the court below shall handover the same to him forthwith.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Animesh/

Sumit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar 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

Laxmi Charan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Himanshu Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Rahul Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Devendra Prasad Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Beyas Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand