Bail application rejected. Court refused to enlarge petitioner on regular bail in a fraud case involving misuse of bank ID, noting evidence of petitioner's presence and role as bank manager.
Bail application rejected; petitioner remains in custody.
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.5650 of 2020
Sunil Kumar Satpathy … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
--- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. For the State : Md. Hatim, A.P.P. Mr. Animesh Kr. Gupta, Dy.S.P., C.I.D.
---
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
---
03/19.01.2021: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Animesh Kr. Gupta, Dy. S.P., C.I.D.
The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No.119 of 2019, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Seraikella.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the bank money has been defrauded by misusing petitioner’s I.D. Further, his presence at the time of transaction was due to the order of the superiors. On this facts, prayer for bail has been made. The petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2020.
On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. The bank has been defrauded by the petitioner and the money has been transacted through the I.D. of this petitioner. Further it has been stated that the petitioner was bank manager of the same branch and the transaction has taken place before opening hour of the bank and the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence, as it is clear from the CCTV footage collected in due process.
In view of above material available on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a fraud case where the money was defrauded using his bank ID.
Whether the petitioner's custody duration and the bank fraud justifies enlargement on bail.
Whether the application for bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. should be allowed in the present circumstances.
Sunil Kumar Satpathy
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
