Dismissed
Neha Sandilya v. the State of Jharkhand
Jharkhand HCA.B.A./4096/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4096…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4096…
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 A.B.A. No. 4096 of 2022 Neha Sandilya …… ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kurmar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P 5/21.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for
the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.2458/2019 which was subsequently sent for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and subsequently numbered Chutia P.S. Case No.203/2019 under sections 420/468/470/471 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that FIR of this case was lodged on the application filed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant against two named accused including the applicant with these allegations that on 30.08.2017, some rooms were booked in the hotel of the informant by accused No.2, Sudha Tiwary and from 30.10.2017 two rooms were taken on rent; while from 30.10.2017 to 24.11.2017 several rooms were taken on rent for the purpose of shooting of films. The staff of the accused persons also stayed in those rooms and the rent amount to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/- was not paid to the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. As per FIR allegation it was the accused - Sudha Tiwary who had booked all the rooms in the hotel of the informant. The occurrence is alleged to be of October - November 2017 and this FIR was lodged after inordinate delay of 2 years on 23.07.2019. Indeed the owner of the hotel is alleged to be co-producer of the film. The applicant is having criminal antecedents which had been mentioned in para-13 of the anticipatory bail application.
Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that applicant is having criminal antecedent of six cases.
In view of the submission and materials on record, the anticipatory bail application is hereby, rejected.
(SUBHASH CHAND, J.)
tarun
Neha Sandilya
The State of Jharkhand
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court