Dismissed

Chullu Lal Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Sept 2019A.B.A./2248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Inthisanticipatorybailpetition,theHighCourtrejectedthegranttothepetitioneraccusedoftheftofRevenueRegisterII.Challengesubmissionregardingcirclemixed承租housewasnotaccompaniedbyrequiredaffidavit,Courtfoundseriousnatureofallegationsandfailuretocomplywithundertakingjustifierejectionofbailduetoneedforcustodialinterrogation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Chullu Lal Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2248 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Chullu Lal Srivastava @ Chunnu Srivastava .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Soni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, A.P.P ------

¶9

Order No.13 Dated- 17.09.2019

¶10

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Korra P.S. Case No.26 of 2019 corresponding to C.N.R. No.JHHB01001133-2019 instituted under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P appearing for the State.

¶12

Though the petitioner took the plea that the Circle Office was running in the rented house of one Naresh Prasad and in the house of the said Naresh Prasad, the petitioner was also residing on rent and he undertook on 03.07.2019 to file a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith the document to show that the Circle Office of Hazaribagh Sadar was running on rent but he failed to file the said affidavit sworn by Naresh Prasad.

¶13

Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai who appeared on 03.07.2019 had made a wrong submission on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while posted as Deputy Inspector, Revenue of Circle, Hazaribag Halka No. IX and XII on 19.02.2019 lodged F.I.R. alleging that from his rented house Register II of Halka No.IX of village Chutiyaro, volume No. 1 to 6, volume No. I of Register II of Banahappa and volume No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Register II of Morangi were stolen away. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has illegally taken the Revenue Register II to his house and used to work from his rented house situated near Dhobiya Talab and he is responsible for missing of twelve Register- II and the petitioner conspired to remove the Register II which are valuable documents of three villages which has not been

¶15

recovered. It is then submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the conduct of the petitioner is mischievous and he engaged three lawyers in this case and the lawyers are contradicting each other making contradictory submission against each other on different dates. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of Register II of three villages which are serious documents. Hence, it is submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶17

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being responsible for removal of Register II of three villages which are valuable documents and the conduct of the petitioner in not complying the undertaking given by him through his lawyer on 03.07.2019 to file the supplementary affidavit duly sworn by the said Naresh Prasad in spite of being given sufficient opportunity as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory of the above name petitioner is rejected.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Animesh/

Chullu Lal Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chullu Lal Srivastava 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

Sayed Sahnawaz Alam Alias Shanawaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Sayed Shanawaz Warsi Alias Shanawaz Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ansul Kumar Alias Anshul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohid Mansoori Vs the State of Jharkhand