Allowed

Resto Haiburu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Feb 2019A.B.A./3/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving forgery of Scheduled Tribe certificates. The petitioner was ordered to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 and furnish a bail bond with sureties upon arrest or surrender.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to depositing Rs. 5,00,000 with Section of Police and furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Resto Haiburu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 03 of 2019

Resto Haiburu

… ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P.

¶10

¶11

Order No. 04: Dated : 1^st February, 2019

¶12

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No. 139 of 2018 for the offence registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 197 & 198 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner by using forged certificate of being a member of scheduled tribes has obtained job in Police Department and superannuated as Sub-Inspector from Bokaro District. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and the certificate produced by the petitioner for employment is proper. It is then submitted that no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner in respect of his caste certificate being forged and straightway this case has been lodged. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- with the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, without prejudice to his defence in the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail

¶15

The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶16

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner, named above, be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of eight weeks from

¶17

the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing a demand draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No. 139 of 2018 subject to the condition laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. with further conditions that at the time of conclusion, the trial court will pass appropriate order, if the petitioner deposits draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶19

Resto Haiburu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resto Haiburu 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

Awadh Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jageshwar Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Kumar Paul Alias Pradip Paul Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandeep Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Papu Kumar Alias Papu Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand