Allowed

Ravi Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Feb 2024A.B.A./6909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a complaint case alleging forgery of LIC certificates and misappropriation of invested money. Noting part repayment of Rs.9,22,000, the court granted anticipatory bail on surrender with bonds and conditions under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: surrender within two weeks; bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two like sureties, subject to s.438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Ravi Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6909 of 2023

¶2

Ravi Prakash … Petitioner - Versus - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shashi Bhusan Mishra ... … Opposite Parties ------

¶3

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶4

----For Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Paramjeet Bajaj, Advocate : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate ---

¶5

07/23.02.2024

¶6

Heard the parties.

¶7

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2208/2019, for the offences registered under sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

¶8

It is alleged that the opposite party No.2 had invested Rs.16,18,900through the petitioner, who is a LIC agent in various LIC policies. It is alleged that petitioner had provided the opposite party No.2 forged LIC certificates.

¶9

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the opposite party No.2 had handed over Rs.11,00,000/- to the petitioner by way of Cheque out of which he has issued a cheque which was dishonored and for this another complaint case being Complaint Case No.1914 of 2018 was filed in which the petitioner had appeared after process was issued to him under Section 204 Cr.P.C. In that case matter was discharged as the petitioner has returned Rs.9,22,000/- to the opposite party No.2.

¶10

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 submitted that the petitioner had returned only Rs.9,22,000/- out of 16,18,900/- which was paid by the opposite party No.2. It was also submitted that the petitioner was discharged from Complaint Case No.1914 of 2018 as he has complied with the direction of the learned trial court by returning Rs.9,22,000/- to the opposite party No.2.

¶11

-2-

¶12

On the last occasion, the opposite party No.2 was directed to file counter affidavit bringing on record the receipts of entire amount which was paid to the petitioner, including the remaining Rs.5,00,000/- due to the opposite party No.2 as claimed by him.

¶13

Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 submitted that he is not in position to comply with the order of the Court as he has no instruction from his client.

¶14

This bail application arises out of a complaint case. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner had returned Rs.9,22,000/- to the opposite party No.2 in Complaint Case No.1914 of 2018.

¶15

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, Jamshedpur. in connection with Complaint Case No. 2208/2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

Any observation made by this Court regarding this Anticipatory Bail Application will not effect its future decision.

¶17

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶18

Jay/-

Ravi Prakash v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Prakash 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

Kuldip Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nawnit Singh Alias Vicky Singh Alias Nawnit Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India through Ncb

Jagannath Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Viswanath Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchanand Kumar Yadav Alias Pachu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dandu Mallah Vs the State of Jharkhand