Dismissed¶15

Piyush Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Jul 2025B.A./6111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Piyush Pratap Singh v. The State of Jharkhand, B.A. No.6111 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.), decided 21-07-2025. Regular bail sought in Pithoria P.S. Case No.148 of 2024, offences under Ss. 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S. 2023; alleged conspiracy to embezzle Rs.47,83,143/- of Government Revenue through a JSBCCL-licensed shop; petitioner in custody since 21.12.2024. Bail rejected on grounds of seriousness of allegation and likelihood of absconding/evidence-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this is not a fit case for release on bail; the prayer for bail is rejected. ¶15

Piyush Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:JHHC:19947] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6111 of 2025

¶2

------

¶3

Piyush Pratap Singh aged about 27 years son of Birendra Singh, resident of village- Muhalla, Aurangabad Road, P.O.- Amba, P.S.Kutumba, District- Aurangabad, Bihar, PIN-824111, UID-68370847-6490, Mobile No.8709241731 .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunny Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P ------

¶9

Order No.02 Dated- 21-07-2025

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.148 of 2024 registered under Section 316 (5), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) and 61 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, has embezzled Government Revenue money to the tune of Rs.47,83,143/- by misappropriating the same while being an In-charge of a shop licensed by the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the petitioner was working under the instructions of the informant as a salesman in Pithoria Composite Shop No.43. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.12.2024. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶13

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the overwhelming evidence against the petitioner and serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of embezzling huge amount of money, there is every chance of the petitioner

¶14

absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.

¶15

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Animesh/

Piyush Pratap Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Pratap Singh 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

MD Maksood Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudeshwar Dusadh Vs Krishna Ram

Ranjana Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khushboo Chadha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narayan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand