The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The court held that due to the gravity of the offences involving forgery and fraud against the government, and the ongoing investigation, bail could not be extended.
Application for 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.9311 of 2022
------ Pradeep Kumar Prasad .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.04 Dated- 11.01.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner in issuing license or renewal of license by forging challans and signatures for the purpose of embezzlement of government money. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and no Departmental Proceeding has been taken against the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there are sufficient materials collected against the petitioners showing their involvement in the alleged offence. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was posted as clerk in District Agriculture Office, Palamau and in connivance with other co-accused persons have issued license and renewal of license for shop of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides collecting huge amount of Rs.2,94,530/- through fabricated challan with forged signature. Petitioner is named accused in FIR and the investigation is going on against him.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, coupled with materials available on record and also in view of
the gravity of offence and the investigation of the case is going on against the petitioner, hence, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail application of petitioner is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under IPC Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420, 120-B r/w 34.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Prasad
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
