Dismissed

Binay Tiwary Alias Vinay Tiwary v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Aug 2022A.B.A./4595/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected an anticipatory bail application for petitioner Binay Tiwary. The court considered his criminal antecedents involving five cases and pending proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, deeming these factors sufficient to negate the case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application of the applicant dismissed and rejected.

Binay Tiwary Alias Vinay Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4595 of 2022

¶2

Binay Tiwary @ Vinay Tiwary …. ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate

¶5

6/05.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Spl.PP for the State.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.55 of 2022, registered under section 323,506,406,420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR of this case was lodged by the order of Magistrate concerned on the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC in which the allegations are made that Binay Tiwary @ Vinay Tiwary was running a firm in the name and style of Binod Tiwary Roadways and he has twenty two trucks. He was in need of money for business purpose. He came to the complainant and requested for a loan amount of Rs.25,00000/-. Accordingly the complainant gave him the loan amount of Rs.25,00000/- and an agreement was also executed between the parties. After the prescribed period he did not return the same and issued cheque which was also dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account. Hence, this FIR was lodged.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not played any fraud as alleged. Indeed he borrowed the amount of Rs.25,00000/- for business purpose. He had issued the cheque which was also dishonoured and proceeding under section 138 of N.I. Act has also been pending against the applicant. The applicant is having criminal antecedents which has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicant. .

¶9

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

¶10

and contended that as per information of the informant the applicant is having criminal antecedents of 5 cases.

¶11

In view of above no case of anticipatory bail of the applicant is made out.

¶12

Accordingly the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected.

¶13

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶14

Tarun

Binay Tiwary Alias Vinay Tiwary v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binay Tiwary Alias Vinay Tiwary 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

Ashok Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangru Oraon Alias Manglu Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand