In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioners' prayer. The court observed that the offence is grave, the petitioners' conduct was unsatisfactory, and they had not co-operated with the investigation despite a charge sheet being submitted years ago.
The prayer for anticipatory bail was 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.5835 of 2022
------
.... .... ....Opposite Parties ------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl.P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Adv.
------
Order No.07 Dated- 16.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Kotwali(Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 516 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 3240 of 2014 instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per FIR, allegation is that petitioners took Rs.45 lakhs from the informant to sell the land and when the informant asked to execute the land, petitioners informed the informant that the land is disputed and they will return the money. The petitioner gave three cheques of Rs.15 lakh each to the informant but the said cheques were dishonored due to insufficient fund. It is further alleged that the petitioners are not returning back the said money with intention to cheat the informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case. No specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 rather they are son of petitioner No.1 and charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioners. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that it is a case of year 2014 and they have already filed Cr.M.P. before Hon’ble High Court for quashing the FIR, which was withdrawn by petitioners. It further
appears that earlier the anticipatory bail of petitioners has already been rejected by the learned trial court but they again renewed the petition in the year 2022. Charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioners in the year 2016 but petitioners have no knowledge of the case and have not co-operated with the investigation of the case. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, coupled with materials available on record against the petitioners, and also in view of the gravity of offence and conduct of the petitioners, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioners is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail in the present case involving cheating and forgery.
Whether the gravity of offence and conduct of the petitioners precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhukar Singh
Sachin Singh @ Sachin Kumar Singh
Man Singh @ Sunny Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
M/s Kohinoor Vayapur Pvt. Ltd.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
