Allowed

MD Mansur Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Mar 2019A.B.A./35/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under Section 120B IPC but cited Section 420 IPC, directing surrender in four weeks and furnishing a bond with sureties as per Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender directed at S.D.J.M., Bermo within four weeks; bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties to be furnished.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.35 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Md. Mansur Alam .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Kalim .... .... ....Opposite Parties

¶4

.... .... ....Opposite Parties

¶5

------

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate For the State : Addl.P.P. For the Complainant : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate

¶8

Order No.04 Dated- 12.03.2019

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.37 of 2017 instituted under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the compromise petition jointly filed by the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.2862 of 2016. Let the same be kept in the record.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs.1,42,000/- from the opposite party No.2 and he is not paying the same. It is submitted that as has been admitted by the opposite party No.2 in the said compromise petition, certified copy of which has been filed by the petitioner today, that he has already received Rs.1,42,000/-. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶13

The opposite party No.2, who is present in the Court today, admits that a compromise petition was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.2862 of 2016, certified copy of which has been filed by the petitioner today.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat 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 S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Complaint Case No.37 of 2017 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Animesh/

MD Mansur Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Mansur Alam 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

Akileshwar Singh Alias Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhotu Saw Alias Chhotu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Singh Alias Gopal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parmeshwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mrs Premlata Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopal Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand