Allowed

Rahul Raj v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2019A.B.A./246/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an Adityapur PS case related to a financial dispute over a vehicle purchase. The petitioner was directed to surrender and furnish a bond. The court imposed conditions regarding cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the investigating officer, and furnishi

What did the court decide?

Grants anticipatory bail directing surrender within four weeks, execution of bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding cooperation and attendance.

Rahul Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.246 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Rahul Raj .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand .... .... 2. Hiratanya Kumbhkar .... Opposite Parties

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P.

¶7

Order No.05 Dated- 01.04.2019

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.114 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.495 of 2018 instituted under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

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

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the informant has instituted this false case against the petitioner as the petitioner has paid him Rs.3,00,000/- to purchase a Scorpio Jeep bearing registration No. JH-AQ-4970 but upon finding that the said vehicle has been hypothecated with the financer and the ownership of the same is not open to be transferred to the petitioner, the petitioner decided not to purchase the said vehicle and demanded back the said Rs.3,00,000/-, hence, this false case has been instituted by the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 at page-17 submits that the same is the copy of the money receipt issued by the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶11

The opposite party No.2, who is present in the Court today, admits that his signature is appearing at Annexure-2 at page-17 but submits that his signature was taken on a blank paper. He further submits that he has taken Rs.80,000/- from the petitioner to get his son admitted and meet his house-hold expenses. He further submits that he does not have any document to show that he handed over the vehicle to the petitioner.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶13

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.114 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.495 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

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

Animesh/

Rahul Raj v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Raj 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

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Devendra Prasad Bauri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Beyas Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand