Allowed

Mukesh Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 May 2024A.B.A./1134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by a bank manager in a complaint alleging forcible seizure of a truck at gunpoint despite payments towards purchase. Court granted bail on surrender within four weeks with bond of Rs.20,000 and two sureties, subject to co-operation conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender within four weeks; release on Rs.20,000 bond with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Mukesh Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1134 of 2024

¶2

------

¶3

Mukesh Ranjan @ Mukesh Ranjan Singh @ Mukesh Singh

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

------

¶7

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl.P.P

¶9

------

¶10

Order No.05/Dated- 09.05.2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.123 of 2010 instituted under Sections 386, 323, 341, 379, 420, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act (cognizance under Section 323, 341 & 370 of Indian Penal Code), the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

As per complaint case, the allegation is that the petitioner along with co-accused forcibly seized a truck from the complainant and his associates at gunpoint, despite the complainant having made substantial payments towards the truck’s purchase according to the agreed terms. Despite legal action, the accused have not responded to demands for the return of the truck.

¶14

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 earlier F.I.R. was instituted and after completion of investigation final form was submitted showing the case to be of civil nature. The main purport of the case is that petitioner is the Manager of IndusInd Bank Limited and the complainant had taken loan for purchasing vehicle for which Rs.8,00,000/- was sanctioned but due to non-payment of complete installment, vehicle was seized for appropriation of the defalcated amount. Hence, this false case has been lodged against the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also

¶15

abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to him. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No.123 of 2010 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Sachin/Sunil

Mukesh Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Ranjan 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

Gulfan Ansari Alias Umar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abid Ansari Alias Dhanu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Kumar Kapri Vs the State of Jharkhand

H K Sarangi Hari Krishna Sarangi Vs State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation

Shashi Alias Rahul Patwa Alias Sashi Kumar Tanti Vs The State Of Jharkhand