Allowed

Geeta Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2022A.B.A./392/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with a case for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court is permitted to release the petitioners on bail upon the joint deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- with the informant without prejudice to their defence, alongside furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail upon deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- with informant and furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties.

Geeta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 392 of 2022

¶2

Geeta Devi

¶3

Nagendra Sahu

¶4

Raju Sahu

¶5

Amit Kumar

¶6

Sumit Kumar … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. ------

¶9

Order No.02 Dated- 07.02.2022

¶10

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶11

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.469 of 2019 registered under sections 420/406/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have cheated and committed criminal breach of trust by taking Rs.8,00,000/- from the informant in terms of the development agreements dated 26.04.2013 and 07.08.2014 entered into between the parties but are causing hindrance in carrying out the construction and are also not returning the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- taken by them. It is then submitted that the informant has violated the terms of the agreement and though he has demolished the house of the petitioners standing thereon by making the petitioners homeless but he has failed to construct the building over the said property in terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioners undertake to jointly pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the informant without prejudice to their defence in this case, subject to final decision of the case and undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case.

¶13

Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four months from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on jointly depositing a demand draft of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn in favour of informant without prejudice to their defence in this case, subject to final decision of the case and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.469 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶16

In case, the petitioners deposit the aforesaid demand draft, the court below is directed to issue notice to the informant and hand over the said demand draft to him, after proper identification.

¶17

At the time of conclusion of the trial, the trial court will pass appropriate order regarding the money if any, deposited by the petitioners with the informant in connection with this case.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶19

Sonu/Gunjan-

Geeta Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi 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

MD Shakil Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Jan Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandan Upadhayay Vs Santosh Upadhyay

Sunny Kumar Alias Ankit Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nakul Mandal Alias Nakul Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Mahto Alias Pankaj Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand