The single-judge bench of the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. Based on the serious nature of the allegations involving government funds and the need for custodial interrogation, the court held it was not a fit case to grant bail.
Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail rejected.
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. 863 of 2022
Ashu Kumar @ Anshu Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 17.02.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the Court in physical mode.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No.257 of 2019 (G.R. No. 428 of 2020) registered under sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used the bank account and ATM card by the co-accused-Ravishek Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar and receiving commission amount from the illegally credited amount in the account of the co-accused person through fake and forged cheques and thus siphoned huge amount of government money from the Government Exchequer. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is a student. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that huge amount of money from the Government Exchequer has been
cheated by committing forgery and using the forged cheques as genuine. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the further details of the case as well as recovery of the cheated amount. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of cheating and forgery involving government funds.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation given the serious nature of the allegations.
Ashu Kumar @ Anshu Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
