Allowed

Ashok Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Aug 2022A.B.A./4320/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application was filed by Ashok Mahto and Rahul Kumar in connection with a case alleging forgery and cheating. The High Court granted anticipatory bail without expressing an opinion on the merits, directing the applicants to furnish a bond and ensure cooperation.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation and not tampering with evidence.

Ashok Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4320 of 2022

¶2

Ashok Mahto 2. Rahul Kumar …. ….. Petitioners

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ganga Kumari Kachhap, Advocate For the State : None For the Informant :Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate

¶7

5/05.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the informant.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicants seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.75 of 2021, registered under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First classXIII, Ranchi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged against 10 named accused including the applicant with these allegations that the grandfather of the informant Kurban Ali had purchased the land of Khata No.98, Plot No.222 and 122 in the year 1975 from one Mosomat Sabiran & after death of Kurban Ali, the name of Md. Yusuf was recorded as a legal heir and mutation was also made. Thereafter, ten decimals of the land was sold to Ashok Mahto on the basis of forged and fabricated documents showing the forged genealogical table of Kurban Ali. Likewise, one sale deed was also executed in the name of Rahul Kumar of the land measuring four decimals. Indeed, the land in question never belonged to so called seller and by playing fraud and forgery the two sale deeds had been executed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants Ashok Mahto & Rahul Kumar both are bona-fide purchasers and one sale deed was executed on 29.09.2014 in favour of Ashok Mahto; while another sale deed was executed on 07.08.2018 in favour of Rahul Kumar. Whether both the sale deeds were executed without title or authority, the same can be decided by the competent civil court. Till date both the sale deeds have not been challenged before the

¶11

competent court. The applicants are having no criminal antecedents and they have been implicated in this case with object to humiliate them on being arrested by the police.

¶12

Learned counsel for the informant appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

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 applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail, at this stage.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the above named applicants involved in the aforesaid case be released on anticipatory bail, on their furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

ii. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

iii. 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 applicants.

¶18

iv. 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 applicants without any reference to this Court.

¶19

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶20

Tarun

Ashok Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Mahto 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

Mantu Mahato Alias Debendra Nath Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaffar Ansari Alias Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaitha Manjhi Alias Kisku Alias Jaitha Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Verma Alias Pankaj Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangru Oraon Alias Manglu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binay Tiwary Alias Vinay Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand