Dismissed

Bodhan Ruidas v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2022A.B.A./2948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand considered a petition filed by Bodhan Ruidas seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged cheating and breach of trust amounting to Rs. 3.70 Lakhs. The Court observed the nature of the offence and the lack of willingness to repay even with time and refused bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail on Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC rejected; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks.

Bodhan Ruidas Vs the State of Jharkhand — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 2948 of 2022

¶2

----Bodhan Ruidas (Owner of Subodhan Enterprises) … …. Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand 2. Mrs. Roshni Mukherjee … …. Opp. Parties

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Niki Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate

¶6

Oral Order 08 / Dated : 07.12.2022

¶7

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner named above has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 181 of 2021 registered under Sections 406, 420, 500, 506, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

Heard the parties.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, a land of Rs.6,73,746/- was sanctioned by the State Bank of India in favour of the informant in which quotation of the petitioner was submitted for purchasing certain machines and, therefore, Rs.3,70,716/- was remitted to the account of the petitioner.

¶10

It is alleged by learned counsel for the informant that neither the machineries were delivered on time nor the amount was repaid and, therefore, the informant was constrained to file the instant case.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the machineries have been purchased from Delhi and he is ready to deliver it to the informant but the same is not being received by him.

¶12

Upon it, learned counsel for the informant by referring to the letter annexed with the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner has admitted of his inability to supply the machineries and has sought for fifteen days’ time to pay back the amount.

¶13

Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks.

¶14

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶15

AKT

Bodhan Ruidas v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodhan Ruidas 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

Rajmata Sumidha Raj Laxmi Devi Vs Haribansh Kr Singh Az Harbansh Singh

Nandkishore Dudhani Vs Kaluram Dudhani

Amrendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Kumar Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Sharan Prasad Vs Shyam Saran Prasad

Sanjay Kumar Verma Alias Sanjay Kr Nunamain Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand