Allowed

Imtiyaz Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2020A.B.A./459/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners accused of forgery and cheating. The Court observed the dispute had civil elements and the petitioners were willing to cooperate with the investigation. Bail was granted subject to sureties and conditions regarding cooperation and avoiding the disputed land.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted privilege of anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bail bond, two sureties, and undertaking to cooperate with investigation and not visit the disputed land.

Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 459 of 2020

¶2

Imtiyaz Ahmad

¶3

Md. Sahabaj Alam @ Md. Sahbaj Ahmad

¶4

Samim Ansari

¶5

Akhter Ansari … Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Kumar, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate ------

¶10

Order No.05 Dated- 03.03.2020

¶11

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.39 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1578 of 2017) registered under sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were the witnesses of the sale deed executed by Keshav Narayan Singh through power of attorney holder to different person in respect of the land which he has already sold to the informant prior to the execution of the sale deed of which the petitioners are the witnesses. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the page nos.10, 12, 22 and 39 of the supplementary affidavit dated 26.02.2020. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false and there is no allegation of any entrustment of money to them and there is also no allegation of impersonation of any of the executants of the sale deed of which the petitioners are the witnesses and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is then submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case and also

¶14

undertake that they will not go over or near the land described in the sale deed of which they are the witnesses. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused person whose case stands on the similar footing has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 in A.B.A. No.8979 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶16

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 four 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 C.J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.39 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1578 of 2017) with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case and also undertake that they will not go over or near the land described in the sale deed of which they are the witnesses subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Gunjan-

Imtiyaz Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz Ahmad 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

Lalita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikandar Gaddi Alias Champiyan Gaddi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanghmitra Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharmendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinki Raj Mittal Vs the State of Jharkhand