Dhananjay Ram Vs the State of Jharkhansd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.2301 of 2024

Dhananjay Ram @ Dhanjay Ram aged about 33 years, son of late Dubraz Ram, resident of village Kani, P.O- Bishrampur, P.S. – Ranka, District- Garhwa.

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP -----

¶8

6/23.08.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned APP appearing for the State.

¶9

The petitioner is accused in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.142 of 2023, registered on 14.09.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 384, 385, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the allegations narrated in the FIR is that the petitioner along with co-accused Ramu Soni had fraudulently and dishonestly by threatening the informant, a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- through cheque have been withdrawn and it is also alleged that on the cheque, the victim informant was forced to sign by putting him on fear of death.

¶11

It is submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 5.01.2024 and he is admittedly the cousin of the informant. It is also submitted that as per the fact that on the earlier occasion, the informant has taken the loan from the coaccused Ram Kumar Soni @ Ramu Soni and the entire of the cheque amount has been transferred in the account of Ram Kumar Soni, the co-accused and not in the account of this petitioner as evident from Paras 39, 44 and 46 of the case diary.

¶12

Further it is submitted that the charge-sheet in this case against this petitioner has been submitted and therefore the possibility of the tampering with the evidence is very remote.

¶13

Further it is also submitted that a compromise petition has been given by the informant before the court below, in which both the parties have amicably resolved their dispute as the petitioner and informant are cousin.

¶14

It is further submitted that PW1 has also examined during the course of the trial, where in the cross-examination he has stated that he had no objection if the case is dropped against the informant and therefore this petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has fraudulently misappropriated the amount through cheque along with the co-accused persons by threatening the informant Manoj Ram and withdrew a huge sum of Rs.3,40,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- and therefore he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of this case.

¶17

Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is found just and fair to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Garhwa, in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No.142 of 2023subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and further subject to the condition that the petitioner will cooperate in the trail and will appear before the learned court below on each and every date as and when required by them, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned court below for the cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

¶19

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

¶20

R.Kumar

¶21

B.A. No.2301 of 2024

¶22

-2-

Dhananjay Ram v. the State of Jharkhansd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Ram v. the State of Jharkhansd

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

Horil Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pachu Parahiya Alias Caitu Parhiya Alias Pachu Prahiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vipul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jivachh Kumar Alias Jivach Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badal Turi Alias Chhotan Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ritik Kumar Sah Alias Ritik Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand