Allowed

Haji Rauf Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Nov 2020A.B.A./3808/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-judge bench granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in a cheating case alleging receipt of money for marriage that was not returned. The court noted a significant delay in the complaint filing. Bail was approved subject to furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount in Complaint Case No. 461 of 2019.

Haji Rauf Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3808 of 2020

¶2

------

¶3

Haji Rauf Mian

¶4

Chhottan Mian @ Sarfuddin Miyan

¶5

Mumtaj Ansari

¶6

Latif Mian

¶7

.... …. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Mukhtar Ansari

¶11

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

¶12

------

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. P. Topno, A.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : None

¶15

Order No.04 Dated- 10.11.2020

¶16

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶17

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.461 of 2019 registered under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have received Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of marriage of daughter of the complainant with the son of petitioner No. 1 but because of demand of more money by the petitioners, the marriage could not be solemnized but the petitioners are not returning the said money. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the complaint is not supported by affidavit in accordance with law. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is delay in lodging the complaint as the alleged occurrence is of 29.07.2015 but the complaint was lodged after a long delay on 29.03.2019. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Though notice was issued to the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.

¶20

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶21

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 petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Complaint Case No.461 of 2019 and subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶23

Animesh/

Haji Rauf Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Rauf Mian 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

Uday Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramiya Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pratima Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandlal Baitha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shahid Akhtar Alias Sahid Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand