Umesh Mali Vs the State of Jharkhand

has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint case leading to lodging of the first information report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As per the allegation, the petitioner was given a cheque of Rs.8,62,462/-, out of which he spent only Rs.5,34,988/- and a sum of Rs.3,24, 461/- remained due with him. However, the informant did not disclose the number of cheque and date, whereby Rs.8,62,462/- was given to the petitioner. In this regard, the informant also did not produce any chit of paper to show as to what work was done by the petitioner and what was the total cost of the said work. The informant has also not described as to how he calculated the work done by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has already completed the construction work and no amount is pending with him. The present case is the outcome of the complaint made by one of the co-accused,

¶15

namely, Ram Kumar Singh along with Chairman and members of Gram Shiksha Samiti before the Block Education Extension Officer, Keredari on 10^th May, 2008 against highhandedness of the informant.

¶16

It is further submitted that the petitioner along with Ram Kumar Singh and other members of Gram Shiksha Samiti had filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 20^th May, 2008 against the informant with regard to irregularities being committed in midday meal, cycle distribution, issuance of certificates to students and admission in the school. The informant being the headmaster of the school had charged extra money from the students during practical examination on the pretext of their guaranteed success. On protest, the informant was compelled to return the money to the students. It is also submitted that the informant in drunken condition fell down in the school for which an enquiry was also conducted. The aforesaid fact was published in a local daily newspaper. As such, the present case has been lodged against the petitioner and other coaccused persons only to teach them a lesson. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been stated in paragraph no.15 of the present anticipatory bail application. He also undertakes to co-operate in ongoing investigation of the case. Hence, he may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶17

-2-

¶18

A.B.A. No.4095 of 2024

¶19

Learned A.P.P. opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, in event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Keredari P.S. Case no.149 of 2022, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

Sanjay/

¶23

-3-

¶24

A.B.A. No.4095 of 2024

Umesh Mali v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Mali 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

Karu Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahdev Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Upendra Singh Alias Upendra Singh Gautam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Chandrabhushan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shani Chandravanshi Alias Shanni Kumar Alias Shani Chandrawanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Rafik Miyan Alias Rafik Miyan Vs the State of Jharkhand