Dismissed

Poonam Devi @ Poonam Kumari and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jun 2016CR. MISC./24914/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail arising out of alleged cheating and criminal conspiracy, the High Court of Patna held that considering the gravity of the offences under the IPC, it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioners directed to surrender and seek regular bail.

Poonam Devi @ Poonam Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24914 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -273 Year- 2015 Thana -ATHMALGOLA District- PATNA ====================================================== 1. POONAM DEVI @ POONAM KUMARI wife of Surendra Kumar 2. Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Kumar Gautam son of Hagdish Ravidas 3. Abhisekh Kumar @ Sonu @ Abhinash Kumar @ Sonu son of Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Gautam all resident of village Kalyanpur P. S. Athmalgola District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesha Nand Pandit (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 22-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 273/2015, disclosing offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

It is alleged in the First Information Report that the petitioners came to the house of the informant and said that if the informant gave Rs. 12 lacs to the petitioners, Munna Kumar (brother of petitioner no. 1) will secure jobs for the sons of the informant in the Patna High Court. The petitioners also created a paper showing receipt of the aforesaid amount.

¶6

Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined

¶7

to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶8

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the

¶10

petitioners is rejected.

¶11

The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If they do so, their application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by rejection of present application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶13

ArunKumar/-

¶14

Poonam Devi @ Poonam Kumari and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Devi @ Poonam Kumari and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

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

Bhola Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Satyendra Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Bihar

Arun Kunwar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sinod Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Basant Singh Vs The State Of Bihar