Dismissed¶12

Sumit Kumar Mittal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Jan 2025Cr.M.P./1769/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail; Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction; maintainability where cancellation application not first moved before trial court; Sessions Judge Jamshedpur order dated 26.04.2023; Complaint Case No. 422 of 2022; IPC Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 34; Rs. 27 lakhs alleged involvement; petition dismissed with liberty to approach trial court; Sumit Kumar Mittal v. State of Jharkhand.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to interfere with the impugned anticipatory bail order under Section 482 CrPC, since no application for cancellation of bail had been filed before the concerned trial court and no valid reason for cancellation of anticipatory bail was indicated; the petition was accordingly dismissed. ¶12

Sumit Kumar Mittal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No.1769 of 2023

¶2

Sumit Kumar Mittal … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties

¶3

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.K. Sinha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Adv.

¶5

Order No.03/Dated- 02.01.2025

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for State assisted by learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 is present.

¶7

Present miscellaneous petition has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the opposite parties in connection with complaint case No. 422 of 2022 registered for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 34 of the I.P.C. passed by Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide order dated 26.04.2023.

¶8

It is fairly admitted that no application for cancellation of bail has been preferred before the concerned trial court itself.

¶9

The only ground for cancellation of bail is that in spite of sufficient material prima facie establishing the offences under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and huge amount of Rs.27 lakhs were involved, anticipatory bail was granted to opposite party no.2.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has objected the aforesaid arguments and submitted that recourse before the learned trial court has not been taken and it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned trial court is misuse of the process of the

¶11

court. Therefore, this proceeding is not entertainable under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶12

Considering the above facts and circumstances, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned order exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in as much as no application for cancellation of bail has been filed before the concerned trial court and no valid reason has been indicated for cancellation of anticipatory bail, therefore, this petition is dismissed.

¶13

7. However, petitioner shall at liberty to raise the matter before the

¶14

concerned trial court.

¶15

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶16

Amar/-

Sumit Kumar Mittal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar Mittal 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

Harendra Bouri Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhola Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajdeo Choudhary And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Amardeep Murmu Alias Somay Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Naushad Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ishrat Zabin Vs the State of Jharkhand