Allowed

Arzoo Mallick v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2024B.A./489/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a case of alleged rape under impersonation and fraud. Petitioner cited delayed FIR, alleged marriage with informant, hotel invoices, restitution case, and bail of co-accused for parity. Court granted bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions including monthly police-station reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to trial attendance, Aadhar/mobile submission, and monthly police reporting for one year.

Arzoo Mallick Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

BA No. 489 of 2024

¶3

Arzoo Mallick ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶4

------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶5

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Advocate; Mr.Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.

¶7

-------- Order No.05/Dated: 15th March, 2024

¶8

When the matter was called out, the learned counsels for the parties have appeared.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that date of occurrence is 17.1.2020 and the FIR was lodged on 10.2.2021 after delay of one year which itself creates doubts. He has further submitted that petitioner and the informant happily married which is apparent from Annexure-2 series wherein photographs of the marriage ceremony of the informant and the petitioner are attached. Thereafter he has pointed out Annexure-3 series wherein invoices of different hotels of the year 2019 have been attached showing guest name Arzoo Mallick and Sandhya Mishra. He has further submitted that the petitioner had also filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights bearing O.S. No. 27 of 2021. The learned counsel further referred to supplementary affidavit dated 14.3.2024 and submitted that coaccused persons, namely, Jalim Ansari, Pramod Ojha and Nitesh Pandey have been released on bail vide orders dated 17.2.2022, 20.10.2021 and 28.11.2022 passed in BA Nos. 491 of 2022, 9948 of 2021 and 10284 of 2022 and the case of this petitioner is on similar footing. Therefore, he seeks parity.

¶10

The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is a clear cut case of misrepresentation and committing rape under impersonation and fraud. He has further submitted that victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the case of prosecution which also came in the memo of evidence attached with counter-affidavit. He has also submitted that the petitioner has got two criminal antecedents even under section 302 IPC.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on executing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class at Bokaro, in connection with Chas Mahila PS Case No. 08 of

¶12

-2-

¶13

2021, subject to the conditions that (i) the petitioner shall attend each and every date of trial unless it is dispensed with by the learned court below (ii) the petitioner shall submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card and mobile number before the learned court below which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of the case without prior permission of the Court and (iii) the petitioner shall report to the concerned police station on every last Saturday of the month, between 01:00 and 05:00 p.m. for one year, failing which or if any adverse remarks regarding his non- appearance at the police station, his bail-bond shall be liable to be cancelled. Any exemption to such attendance shall be done so after direction from the learned Court below.

¶14

KNR ( Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

Arzoo Mallick v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arzoo Mallick 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bijay Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ujjwal Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikram Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Kumar Choudhary Alias Nitesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand