Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi rejected the application for anticipatory bail of Shanta Kumar in a fraud case involving UCO Bank, due to the chance of absconding and tampering with evidence.
Prayer for anticipatory bail dismissed/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 ABA No. 1579 of 2023
Shanta Kumar … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Addl. PP For the Opp. Party no. 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
09 / 04.09.2023 Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No. RC01(S) / 2011-AHD-R registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents, has defrauded the UCO Bank, Deoghar branch by taking loan of Rs. 1,68,75,000/-. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and in fact, the principal co-accused, Shivdutt Sharma has admittedly committed the said offence and the petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,000/- to the co-accused Shivdutt Sharma, as per the chargesheet. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned ASGI, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in serious allegation against the petitioner of forging the documents and defrauding the UCO Bank of Rs. 1,68,75,000/-. It is then submitted that there is every chance of the petitioners absconding, if released on bail, hence, keeping in view the grave offence committed by him, and the overwhelming evidence, which
has been collected by investigating agency, during the investigation of the case, there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with evidence also. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner of forging the documents and defrauding the UCO Bank of Rs. 1,68,75,000/- and his chance absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail , this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner prejudicial to the contents of R.C. Criminal No.01(S)/2011-AHD-R registered under the IPC sections 419/420/467/468/471 and 120B.
Whether the chance of absconding and tampering with evidence makes it a non-fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Shanta 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
