Disposed

Mukhtar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Jul 2024A.B.A./475/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a complaint case alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust over sale of a financed car whose EMIs went unpaid, leading to bank seizure. Court extended anticipatory bail with directions to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender within two weeks and release on bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- with two like sureties subject to s.438(2) CrPC conditions.

Mukhtar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A No. 475 of 2023

¶2

Mukhtar Ansari ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Samruddin Ansari ----Opp. Parties --CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶3

¶4

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the O.P-State: Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, Advocate

¶5

¶6

08 / 02.07.2024 Heard the parties.

¶7

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 2021 of 2017 for the offences registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶8

Petitioner is alleged to have sold his car to the opposite party no. 2 for consideration amount of Rs. 4,64,000/-. The said vehicle was financed by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It is alleged that the vehicle was seized by the Bank as the EMI was not paid.

¶9

Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, stating that Rs. 5,85,105/- was paid to the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2, but the petitioner has not deposited the said amount in the bank.

¶10

It was submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has paid some amount by cash. However, no documents have been filed in support of this submission. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was supposed to pay the remaining EMI to the bank. Since the petitioner did not pay the EMI, vehicle was seized.

¶11

This anticipatory bail application arises out of a complaint case.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am 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 two 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. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 2021 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶14

Ranjeet/

Mukhtar Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtar Ansari 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

Asha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Nonia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Alias Mishu Yadav Alias Mishu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aftab Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand