Dismissed

Shashi Prakash v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2019A.B.A./451/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand exercised its powers under the inherent jurisdiction to reject the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner. The Court held that due to serious allegations of misappropriation, necessity for custodial investigation, and criminal antecedents, the petitioner was not on bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner held to affront of law.

Shashi Prakash Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.451 of 2017

¶2

------

¶3

Shashi Prakash

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, A.P.P ------

¶10

Order No.17 Dated- 11.09.2019

¶11

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.0043 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.247 of 2016 instituted under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has altogether taken an advance of Rs.9,11,81,600/- but the total amount of work done by him against the said advance amount is Rs.7,55,91,600/- and there is allegation against him is that he is not accounting for the difference amount of Rs.1,55,90,000/-. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false as the petitioner has received only Rs.8,30,93,535/- and it has wrongly been mentioned that he has taken an advance of Rs.9,11,81,600/- and it is also submitted that an inflated amount of work done by the petitioner has been mentioned as the petitioner has done only work of Rs.7,50,16,900/-. It is then submitted that the excess amount is with the Junior Engineer and not with the petitioner and Junior Engineer has been admitted to regular bail vide order dated 21.03.2017 in B.A. No.893 of 2017. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of misappropriating a sum of Rs.1,55,90,000/- which the petitioner is not ready and willing to deposit and each and every witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for

¶15

recovery of huge amount of defalcated money. It is further submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and he was earlier in judicial custody in connection with other cases related to defalcation of amount relating to MANREGA scheme, hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner of defalcation of Rs.1,55,90,000/- and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as his criminal antecedent, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Animesh/

Shashi Prakash v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Prakash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt B Bharti Devi Alias Bharti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Union of India through Public Prosecutor Spe CBI Dhanbad Vs Sri Promod Kumar Singh

Basudev Das Alias Basudeo Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunny Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Robert Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravinder Chaurasia Alias Ravinder Prasad Vs the Union of India through CBI