Allowed

Birottam Kumar Mahatha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Sept 2024A.B.A./4568/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced allegations of cheating and fraud. The court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within three weeks and specified conditions for bail, drawing comparisons with the bail granted to a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender before the Court below within three weeks; release on bail upon furnishing Rs. 20,000 bond with two sureties.

Birottam Kumar Mahatha 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. 4568 of 2023

¶3

Birottam Kumar Mahatha ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Madan Prasad Burnwal ….. Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Prajapati For the State: Mr. N. K. Ganjhu, A.P.P For O.P.No.2: Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy

¶11

¶12

14/04.09.2024 The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406/420/471/328/120B/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. On perusal of the complaint as well as the solemn affirmation of the O.P.No.2 recorded during enquiry, it would be evident that the petitioner allegedly introduced the O.P.No.2 with co-accused Lakshman Mahatha. If the land in question was sold by Lakshman Mahatha to two persons i.e. Rana Pratap Yadav as well as the O.P.No.2, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. Co-accused Lakshman Mahatha has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court itself vide order dated 24.11.2022 passed in A. B. P. No. 1547/2022. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 while opposing the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that the petitioner had initially executed an agreement to sale with the O.P.No.2 and had also received consideration amount.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within a period of three weeks. If he surrenders before the Court below within the aforesaid period, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C. P. Case No. 329/2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶16

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶17

Satish/-

Birottam Kumar Mahatha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birottam Kumar Mahatha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Ganjhu Alias Yogendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khagendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abodh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Yashodhara Kumari Alias Yashodhara Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithlesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand