Allowed

Anuj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Sept 2019A.B.A./2778/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a complaint case under the IPC and NI Act. The court noted the petitioner's failure to repay funds was alleged as cheating but noted a dispute existed. Bail was granted subject to surrender and furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender directed within four weeks; bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties required.

Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2778 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Anuj Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand .... .... 2. Sri Anjani Kumar Ray .... Opposite Parties

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ray, Advocate

¶7

Order No.07 Dated- 17.09.2019

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.355 of 2018 instituted under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act wherein cognizance has been taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

Though vide order dated 17.08.2019 learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 had prayed for time to file the counter-affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the bank transaction showing transfer of the amount from the bank account of the opposite party No.2 to the account of the petitioner but he has not file the same without any plausible reason.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs.24,00,000/- from the complainant/opposite party No.2 and he is not repaying the same. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that in pursuance of the undertaking given by him on 17.08.2019, the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit annexing therewith documents in support of his contention of payment of Rs.12,48,433/- to the opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that there is no document to show entrustment of any money by the complainant to the petitioner and the alleged cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant is a forged one. It is also submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned A.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

¶13

petitioner.

¶14

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 J.M. 1^st Class, Bokaro 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 J.M. 1^st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No.355 of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶16

Animesh/

Anuj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj 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

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

Chullu Lal Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ansul Kumar Alias Anshul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohid Mansoori Vs the State of Jharkhand