Allowed

Gyandeep Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Jan 2022B.A./9844/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, arrested in a cheating case, applied for bail, claiming the allegations against him were false and concocted by the informant. The court allowed the bail application after hearing counsel, directing the release of the petitioner on bail bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.102 of 2021 upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/ with two sureties.

Gyandeep Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9844 of 2021

¶2

Gyandeep Kumar ..... … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sohrab Alam …. …. Opp. Parties --------

¶3

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

¶4

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Kishore Kr. Mishra, Advocate --------

¶5

06/04.01.2022 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office within a period of one week.

¶7

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant–Gyandeep Kumar with prayer to release on bail in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.102 of 2021 registered under Sections 406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the informant Sohrab Alam with the allegations that the he and two more persons had paid Rs.13 lakhs to the Institution, namely, Pragati Bal Vikash Yojana for the purpose to provide them job and several persons along with the informant were duped by the applicant and other officer bearers of the said institution. It is further alleged that no salary was paid to the informant and other persons, thereafter, this F.I.R. was lodged. It is also submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and concocted one and in fact, the said institution provides training for computer development programme and English speaking course etc. for which the fees were to be paid by the trainee candidates and the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 03.04.2021. Similarly, situated co-accused Jayant Kumar Thakur @ Jayant Kumar has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 passed in B.A. No.11545 of 2021.

¶9

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

-2-

¶11

In view of the submissions made and material on record, the bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in aforesaid case.

¶12

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶13

Rohit

Gyandeep Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyandeep Kumar 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

Sakendra Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ehtramul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Falguni Rout Alias Faguni Yadav Alias Faguni Rout Vs the State of Jharkhand

Morga Hassa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tanweer Alam Alias MD Masum Choudhary Alias Tanweer Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sohan Choudhary Alias Sohan Kurmiu Vs the State of Jharkhand