Dismissed¶21

Raj Kumar Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2025B.A./1175/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected — vehicle-financing fraud allegations (46 victims, about 160 financed vehicles, installments unpaid, vehicles sent to Gujarat) — Jharia P.S. Case No. 212 of 2024 — sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — High Court of Jharkhand, Justice Ambuj Nath, 23.07.2025 — petitioners Raj Kumar Dutta, Nathani Tarun Ashok @ Ashok Tarun Bhai Nathani and Mukesh Saw.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of allegation, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail; their prayer for bail stands rejected. ¶21

Raj Kumar Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025: JHHC:20395

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A No. 1175 of 2025

¶4

Raj Kumar Dutta, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Ashok Kumar Dutta, resident of Nunudih, Near Kali Mandir, P.O. Pathardih, P.S. Sudamdih, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand ----Petitioner

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party

¶6

With

¶7

B.A. No. 2434 of 2025

¶8

NATHANI TARUN ASHOK @ ASHOK TARUN BHAI NATHANI @ TARUN BHAI NATHANI @ T.A. NATHANI, Aged 35 Years, Son of Ashok Bhai Nathani @ Ashok Nathani, R/o Vill. Motasurka, Tahsil Sihor, P.O. & P.S. Sihor, Dist Bhawnagar, Gujarat ----Petitioner

¶9

With

¶10

B.A No. 2494 of 2025

¶11

Mukesh Saw @ Mukesh Kumar Saw, age of 32 years S/o Sagar Saw, R/o Bhowra Bara Bangal, P.O and P.S- Jorapokhar Bhowra District-Dhanbad

¶12

----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ----Opp. Party

¶13

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶14

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate [B.A. 1175/2025] Mr. Vikram Sinha, Advocate [B.A. 2434/2025] Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate [B.A.2494/2025] For the O.P-State: Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. [B.A. 1175/2025] Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P [B.A. 2434/2025] Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P [B.A. 2494/2025]

¶15

03 / 23.07.2025 All these bail applications arise out of the same police case. Accordingly, they are being disposed of by a common order.

¶16

Heard the parties.

¶17

Petitioners have been made accused in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 212 of 2024 for the offences registered under sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of Sri Rajiv Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶18

Petitioners Raj Kumar Dutta and Mukesh Saw enticed 46 persons to handover their documents of identification and other documents and misused

¶19

¶20

the same by getting about 160 vehicles financed in the name of the victims. They did not pay the monthly installments of those financed vehicles. It is alleged that the vehicles in question were sent to the petitioner Nathani Tarun Ashok @ Ashok Tarun Bhai Nathani in Gujarat.

¶21

Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶22

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶23

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Raj Kumar Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sheo Sharan Singh Alias Shivsharan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gulshan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Dome Alias Sona Alias Sona Babu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagen Marandi Alias Baneshwar Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhlesh Kumar Ganjhu Alias Akhlesh Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand