Allowed

Asit Chimanlal Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Aug 2024A.B.A./4212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 409/420/120-B IPC arising from a complaint case. Parties amicably settled their dispute, recorded via supplementary affidavit, and both the complainant and the prosecution raised no objection. The court enlarged the petitioners on anticipatory bail on specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: release on bond of Rs.20,000 each with two like sureties to CJM Dumka, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Asit Chimanlal Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 4212 of 2024

¶3

Asit Chimanlal Mehta

¶4

Deena Asit Mehta … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Rajendra Prasad …. … Opposite Parties

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

¶7

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sagar Kumar, A.C. to

¶8

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

¶9

Order No. 06 Dated: 20.08.2024

¶10

The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to filing of Complaint (P.C.R.) Case No. 83 of 2008, the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have amicably settled their dispute. He further refers the relevant paragraphs of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on 14.08.2024 which read as under:

¶12

“5. That it is submitted that during the pendency of the aforementioned anticipatory bail application, both the parties have without any pressure, coercion or without any threat of any kind had willfully agreed to settle their dispute before this Hon’ble Court.

¶13

6. That it is submitted that both the parties have no grudge against each other at present and for their betterment as also for the betterment of society in general, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.

¶14

7. That it is submitted that the petitioners declared that the instant supplementary affidavit is being filed voluntarily without any duress or threat of any kind.

¶15

8. That it is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has also agreed that in future, he will not file any case against the petitioners based upon the same facts and same date of incident.”

¶16

3. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

¶17

that since the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have amiably

¶18

settled the present dispute, the petitioners may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶19

4. Mr. Sagar Kumar, A.C. to Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, accepts the fact stated in the supplementary affidavit dated 14.08.2024 particularly that the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have amicably settled the present dispute. It is also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners.

¶20

5. Learned A.P.P. also submits that since the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have amicably settled their dispute as has been stated in supplementary affidavit dated 14.08.2024, he has no objection if the petitioners are granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶21

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have amicably settled their dispute, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Complaint (P.C.R.) Case No. 83 of 2008, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶24

Ritesh/

¶25

¶26

A.B.A. No. 4212 of 2024

Asit Chimanlal Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asit Chimanlal Mehta 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

Kamdeo Mahtha Alias Kamdev Pasi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hariom Sao Alias Hariom Saw Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajkapur Kumar Alias Rajkapur Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Morful Sk. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Laltu Mitra Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Kumar Bhuihaar Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand