Disposed¶¶22

Mahlaqua Akbar v. the State of Jharkhand

Anticipatory Bail – High Court of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Aug 2025A.B.A./4482/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mahlaqua Akbar v. The State of Jharkhand and Milan Mandal, ABA No. 4482 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.), decided 18.08.2025 — anticipatory bail application disposed of, no interference required; Complaint Case No. 362/2023; Section 420 IPC; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; post-dated dishonoured cheque; cognizance; Sessions Judge's direction to appear before Trial Court and pray for bail; petitioner counsel Sabyasanchi; State represented by Mrs. Sweta Singh, A P.P.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court did not grant anticipatory bail. The application was disposed of, the petitioner remaining to appear before the learned Trial Court and pray for bail in terms of the direction of the learned Sessions Judge. ¶¶22

Mahlaqua Akbar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:24070

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 4482 of 2025

¶3

Mahlaqua Akbar, age 36 years, old wife of Ali Quraishi, resident of village Sahibganj Town, P.O.+P.S. – Sahibganj Nagar, District – Sahibganj ….. …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The state of Jharkhand

¶6

Milan Mandal, son of Prem Lal Mandal, resident of Village Labari, P.O. & P.S. – Barhet, District – Sahibganj

¶7

..... … Opp. Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Sweta Singh, A P.P.

¶11

¶12

06/18.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

¶13

through V.C. and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 362/2023, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered under Section 420 of IPC and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶16

He further submits that the cheque has been dishonoured which was post-dated and the learned Court, in spite of that, has taken cognizance under Section 420 of IPC.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the anticipatory application is misconceived in view of the

¶18

2025:JHHC:24070

¶19

observation made by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶20

Looking into the direction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it transpires that the learned Sessions Judge has taken care of the allegation and in view of that he has been pleased to direct the petitioner to move before the learned Trial Court by way of appearance and pray for bail. Learned Court has also indicated that the decision has to be taken in the light of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court. In view of the above, there is clear indication of the intention of the learned Sessions Judge to grant the bail.

¶21

In view of the above, no interference is required.

¶22

In view of that, this Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed

¶23

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

R.Kumar

Mahlaqua Akbar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahlaqua Akbar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandreshwar Prasad Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Dr. Manas Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sajan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nazma Praveen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Diwan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand