Dismissed

Jaladhar Sethi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Aug 2022A.B.A./3757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's plea at the initial stage without expressing an opinion on merits, ordering release on furnishing a bond and保证人 compliance with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of the like amount and adherence to specified conditions regarding interrogation, conduct, and cooperation with the t

Jaladhar Sethi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3757 of 2022

¶2

Jaladhar Sethi ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Abhinaw Abhijeet …. …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Samir Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A. III

¶6

¶7

06/08.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.C. to G.A. III for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.233 of 2014 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against five named accused with the allegations that one Subhendu Choudhary and Saumendu Choudhary had filed an application for loan over draft facility for Rs.8 lacs. The documents were verified by the then Branch Manager, namely, Jaladhar Seti and legal opinion was also taken by the authorized counsel Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay. Accordingly, the payment was also made in the account of debtor. Shekh Abdul Kudus and Shekh Rasid were the guarantor and they filed original documents of sale deed no.11783 dated 08.02.1982. The debtor did not pay the dues of loan amounting to Rs.28,55,000/-. The publication was made in regard to sale of the property but it was found that neither it belong to the debtor nor to the guarantor. Hence, this F.I.R. was lodged.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant was manager of the alleged bank at that time, yet he had sanctioned the loan as per report of the authorized legal officer of the concerned bank, namely, Sunil Kumar Upadhyay. The documents which were produced were free from encumbrances. The applicant is having no criminal antecedent and is ready to abide all the conditions as laid down by this Court.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

In view of the above no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present application pending or calling for counter affidavit from the State. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail, at this stage.

¶13

-2-

¶14

In the event of arrest, the abovenamed applicant, involved in the aforesaid case be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:-

¶15

i. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶16

ii. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

iii. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court below.

¶18

iv. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

v. The applicant shall co-operate in the trial before the court below and in case of non-cooperation, the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant without any reference to this Court.

¶20

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶21

Rohit

Jaladhar Sethi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaladhar Sethi 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

Pankaj Verma Alias Pankaj Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangru Oraon Alias Manglu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bikki Oreya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anand Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bajruddin Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand