Allowed

Tulsi Pandit Alias Murari Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2023A.B.A./11027/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving cheating and destruction of property, directing release on surrender within six weeks subject to standard conditions including cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and specified conditions.

Tulsi Pandit Alias Murari Pandit Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 11027 of 2022

¶2

Tulsi Pandit @ Murari Pandit … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties -----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶3

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Himashu S. Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate

¶4

------

¶5

Order No.04 Dated- 05.10.2023

¶6

Heard the parties.

¶7

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.337 of 2022 registered under sections 341/323/504/420/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has cheated and committed mischief by destroying the property of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is no allegation of entrustment of money to the petitioner nor there is any document regarding transfer of land by the petitioner to the informant. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and also undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on

¶11

furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.337 of 2022 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶12

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶13

Sonu/Gunjan-

Tulsi Pandit Alias Murari Pandit v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Pandit Alias Murari Pandit 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

Danish Mohammad Joheb Siddiqui Alias Danish Mohmmad Joyeb Siddiqui Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mansoor Alias MD Mansur Ali Alias MD Mansur Ali Taid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Hafiz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suaiva Khatoon Alias Shaiba Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand