Allowed

Manoj Mahtha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2021A.B.A./977/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner moving this Court. The petitioner moves for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with theft and extortion allegations. The Court grants anticipatory bail subject to appearing before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to surrender within six weeks and be enlarged on bail upon surrender.

Manoj Mahtha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.977 of 2020

¶2

------

¶3

Manoj Mahtha .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vina Das .... .... ....Opposite Parties ------

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ahsok Kumar, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv.

¶6

Order No.09 Dated- 16.07.2021

¶7

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar (T) P.S. Case No.91 of 2019 instituted under Sections 341, 448, 387, 379, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons broke the lock of the house of the informant, committed theft of household articles worth Rs.3,00,000/- and when the informant came to know and went to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner along with co-accused persons assaulted her and demanded extortion of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land over which the alleged house is claimed to be situated by the informant and in fact, that house belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner has been staying in the said house before the date of occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/(Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (T) P.S. Case

¶12

No.91 of 2019 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶14

Pappu/

Manoj Mahtha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Mahtha 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

Naina Jhari Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Agarwala Alias Arun Kumar Bakrewalla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nundeo Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mundrika Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhash Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand