Allowed

Angad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2020B.A./4895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under B.A. No. 4895 of 2019, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi granted bail to a petitioner who was an accused in a criminal case involving co-operative society defalcation, directing him to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

Angad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4895 of 2019

¶2

Angad Singh ... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Seraikela Circle, Dist- Seraikella-Kharsawan.

¶6

... … Opposite Parties ---------

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Sharma, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2. : None

¶9

05/06.01.2020 Heard Mr. Abhishek Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice.

¶10

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 08/2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 273/2007.

¶11

It has been alleged that Manoj Kumar, the then Block Co-operative Development Officer, Nimdih had defalcated an amount of Rs. 4,69,39,046.52/- from Nimdih Lamps.

¶12

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the First Informant Report but subsequently has been implicated only on account of the fact that he happened to be the honorary President of Nimdih Lamps for the period 2002-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2019 and is an old man aged about 70 years suffering from several ailments.

¶13

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶14

It appears from the First Information Report that specific allegation of defalcation of a huge amount has been attributed to Manoj Kumar and not to the petitioner. Subsequently the name of the petitioner seems to have come

¶15

-2-

¶16

up on account of the fact that the petitioner was the President of Nimdih Lamps from 2002-2006.

¶17

Regard being had to the aforesaid fact coupled with the period of custody, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 08/2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 273/2007.

¶18

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶19

Alok/-

Angad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angad Singh 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

Subhash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Anand Nag Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ghanshyam Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Enamul Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chamra Sinku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Firoz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand