Surajnath Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Oct 2024A.B.A./1188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; A.B.A.; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Arun Kumar Rai; Surajnath Saw; Md. Hasib; C.P. Case No. 216 of 2022; Section 420 IPC; Section 120B IPC; cheating; criminal conspiracy; complaint case; amicable settlement/compromise; Rs. 7.2 lakhs paid to complainant; SDJM Bermo at Tenughat; surrender within four weeks; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; 10 October 2024.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to surrender before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat within four weeks and, on surrender, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, in connection with C.P. Case No. 216 of 2022. ¶¶15

Surajnath Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1188 of 2024

¶2

Surajnath Saw, S/o Dwarika Saw, Resident of Village 166A, Near Hari Mandir, Dantoo, PO-Dantu, PS-Kasmar, District-Bokaro ..… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Md. Hasib, Son of Md. Rafiq, Resident of Village Lukaiya, P.O. & P.S. Peterwar, District Bokaro ..... Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Robin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Chaitauy Vijay, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

¶9

10/ 17^th October, 2024

¶10

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 216 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

¶11

Joint submission has been made from the counsel for the parties that matter has been amicable settled between the parties and in lieu of that as far as present case is concerned, petitioner has already paid Rs. 7.2 lacs to the complainant/opposite party no.2

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that he received instruction from complainant/o.p. no. 2 that he has received Rs. 7.2 lacs from this petitioner.

¶13

Learned APP opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶14

Heard the parties and perused the records.

¶15

Considering that this is a complaint case in which Court summoned petitioner accused under Section 420 of the IPC and matter has been amicably settled between the parties, this Court is inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned court below on his surrender, shall release him on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of

¶16

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with C.P. Case No. 216 of 2022.

¶17

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶18

Rajnish

Surajnath Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajnath Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Das Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Saw Alias Nepali Saw Alias Manoj Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sashi Ranjan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Prasad Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand