Single judge order rejecting an anticipatory bail application for an accused facing multiple IPC charges, noting evidence of complicity in loan sanctions totaled Rs. 1.51 crore and declining to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Bail application 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 B.A. No.3165 of 2020
Birsa Toppo @ Birsa Tappo …… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
---------
05/Dated: 03th September, 2020
1. The petitioner is an accused for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Mosabani P.S. Case No.13 of 2014.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P and on perusal of the case diary, it appears that internal investigation was also conducted by the higher officials of the Bank. In para – 92, 97, 101 and 102, the statement of the higher officials who conducted the enquiry has been recorded and they have stated about the complicity of the petitioner who had sanctioned 8 loans amounting to Rs.1.51 crore, in favour of family members of accused Deepak Bhattacharya.
In the attending facts and circumstances, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly bail application stands rejected.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Chandan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the evidence of complicity in loan sanctions against family members of another accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Birsa Toppo @ Birsa Tappo
The State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
