Allowed

Suresh Kumar Bhalotia v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Nov 2020A.B.A./5581/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner who personally undertook to remove defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter. The petitioner faces charges under IPC Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 related to alleged forgery in a horticulture scheme.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on bail in case of arrest or surrender within six weeks by furnishing security and submitting documents.

Suresh Kumar Bhalotia Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B. A. No. 5581 of 2020

¶3

Suresh Kumar Bholotia … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma , Adv. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey , Addl. P.P.

¶6

02 / 05.11.2020 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

¶8

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. case no. 166 of 2020 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that under the National Horticulture Scheme, the executing agency namely Sai Ram Welfare Society, Jhounsagarhi through main office at Dhanbad without doing any plantation work in Dahijore village, under Dumaria Panchayat, submitted forged bill in the name of fake beneficiaries in conspiracy with the then District Horticulture Officer, Deoghar, forged bill of Sandeep Khad Bhandar was also submitted and the bill was passed. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of Sandeep Khad Bhandar. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the notice under section 41A CrPC, the

¶11

petitioner has intimated in writing to the I.O. of the case that he has no concern with Sai Ram Welfare Society and he has not supplied any fertilizer, seed or medicine to the said society and a fake receipt in the name of his shop has been used by the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also ready and willing to furnish sufficient security including cash security of Rs. 10,000/- hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

The learned Addl. PP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶13

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. case no. 166 of 2020 subject to the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigation of the case and will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar card at the time of surrender in the court below with an undertaking not to change mobile number during the pendency of the case along with the other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶14

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶15

Smita/-

Suresh Kumar Bhalotia v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Bhalotia 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

Hari Narayan Rai Vs State Through Cbi

Ashok Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sugni Kumari Alias Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Yadav Alias Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tileshwar Yadav Alias Tileshwar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramnarayan Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand