Single judge order rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail due to serious allegations of document forgery. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3981 of 2019
Shipul Barai … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.05 Dated- 16.09.2019
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Basia P.S. Case No.22 of 2019 registered under sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 12 (1) (b)/12 (1-A) of Passport Act, 1967.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused persons Sukhdeo Barai allegedly was involved in obtaining and issuance of passport through exercise of fraudulent means and cheating and it is also alleged that the father of the petitioner is resident of Bangladesh and the petitioner was not born in India or under Basia Police Station and he is the permanent resident of Gopalganj in Bangladesh. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are false and the petitioner is a citizen of India and has no connection with Bangladesh. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of forging documents to prepare fake passport for a person who is not the citizen of India and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required
during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner of forging documents to get an Indian passport issued in respect of a persons who is not a citizen of India and also the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Gunjan-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving allegations of forgery for obtaining a fake passport?
Shipul Barai
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
