Allowed

Anjay Kumar Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Feb 2022A.B.A./643/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of cheating over construction area shares. The court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to resolve the underlying civil dispute and surrender within six weeks, imposing specific conditions for enlargement on bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon surrender within six weeks, subject to conditions of proving 9% share distribution to three brothers and furnishing a bail bond with sureties.

Anjay Kumar Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.643 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Anjay Kumar Rai .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nabin Ghosh .... .... ....Opposite Parties

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, Addl.P.P

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 16.02.2022

¶8

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

¶11

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 instituted under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his two brothers entered into a registered development agreement with the petitioner for construction of multistoried buildings on their land and his brothers also executed registered power of attorney in favour of the developer and as per the agreement, 36 per cent of the constructed area was to be given to the informant along with Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent but the same has not been given by the developer. It is further submitted that after completion of the apartment, the informant and his brothers requested for handing over 36 per cent of the constructed area to them but ultimately the petitioner cheated and did not given the same. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is further submitted that after construction of the said building, the informant and his brothers authorized the co-accused-Sukumar Ghosh who is maternal uncle as well as owner of the said land and the petitioner issued a letter of allotment to the said co-accused-Sukumar Ghosh of entire 36 per cent of the building area. It

¶13

is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to recover 27 per cent of the constructed area from the co-accused-Sukumar Ghosh and gives 9 per cent of the constructed area each to Narayan Ghosh, Naveen Ghosh and Sujit Ghosh. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on showing proof of giving share of 9 per cent of the constructed area each to Narayan Ghosh, Naveen Ghosh and Sujit Ghosh and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Ranchi in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 32 of 2019 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Pappu/

Anjay Kumar Rai v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjay Kumar Rai 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

Gopal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Afjal Quraishi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Reshma Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laxman Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Usman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand