Allowed

MD Alimuddin v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2019A.B.A./3315/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with an ITE Act/IPC cheating case where a settlement had been reached between the parties and no serious objection was raised by the State or the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.193 of 2017 upon surrender within six weeks by furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

MD Alimuddin Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3315 of 2019

¶3

Md. Alimuddin … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Jahida Khatoon @ Chandni … Opposite Parties

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Tiwary, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate

¶10

------

¶11

Order No.05 Dated- 05.09.2019

¶12

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.193 of 2017 (T.R. No. 975 of 2018) registered under sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 files a Vakalatnama . Keep the same in the record.

¶15

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has cheated the complainant-opposite party no.2 who is the wife of the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been amicable settlement between the parties and the parties have settled the matter outside the court. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, they have no serious objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Giridih, in connection with Complaint Case No.193 of 2017 (T.R. No. 975 of 2018) subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

Sonu-

MD Alimuddin v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Alimuddin 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

Prabhakar Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishnu Gupta Alias Vishnu Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhaneshwar Sharma Alias Dhaneshwar Mistri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanajay Kumar Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Animesh Kumar Alias Animesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand