The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, considered an application for anticipatory bail under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The court rejected the prayer, deeming the case unfit for anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.
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. 641of 2022
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Addl.P.P
Order No.02 Dated- 14.02.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the court in physical mode.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 231 of 2021 instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in criminal conspiracy with the coaccused person has committed forgery in respect of a cheque and cheated Bank of Baroda of Rs.36,70,000/-. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused-Saurav Malviya. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of being actively involved in furtherance of their common intention with the co-accused persons in commission of forgery and swindling away huge amount of money, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required during the investigation
of the case for recovery of the huge amount of cheated money and also to find out the specific details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioners be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Pappu/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail in a case alleging cheque forgery and cheating.
Whether custodial interrogation is required during the investigation despite the petitioners' undertaking to cooperate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bunti Naag
State
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
