Allowed

Mohammad Ali Alias MD Ali v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Feb 2022B.A./425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail proceedings, the High Court of Jharkhand considered the petitioner's application for enlargement on bail in a cheating case involving a disputed land sale and boundary wall construction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of similar amount, subject to conditions including one bailor being a relative.

Mohammad Ali Alias MD Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B. A. No. 425 of 2022

¶3

…..

¶4

Mohammad Ali @ Md. Ali …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶5

-----

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, A.P.P.

¶8

…. .

¶9

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

¶10

02/11.02.2022 Defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.

¶11

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021 registered under Sections 467/468/419/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶12

It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent. It is submitted that land was purchased in the year 2010 by the informant from the co-accused Washim Akhtar and the petitioner was a witness to the Sale Deed dated 24.12.2010. It is submitted that the dispute arose with regard to construction of the boundary wall and the present case was instituted in the year 2021. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2021 and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and the petitioner along with the co-accused Washim Akhtar had cheated the informant of Rs. 3.27 Lac and as such, bail of the petitioner is fit to be rejected.

¶14

From perusal of the FIR and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, it appears that land was purchased in

¶15

the year 2010 by the informant from the co-accused Washim Akhtar and the petitioner was one of the witness in the Sale Deed. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner namely Mohammad Ali @ Md. Ali is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021), subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own relative of the petitioner.

¶16

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶17

Kamlesh/

Mohammad Ali Alias MD Ali v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ali Alias MD Ali 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

Ravindra Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sonu Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shubham Ram Alias Shubham Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Mandal Alias Pankaj Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Prasad Alias Mithu Prasad Alias Mittu Vs the State of Jharkhand