Single Judge allowed the bail appeal, setting aside the special judge's rejection of bail and directing the enlargement of the appellant on a bond with sureties.
Impugned order dated 16.08.2021 in A.B.P. No. 1018 of 2021 set aside; appellant enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.236 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2018 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan
======================================================
JAI PRAKASH DUBEY @ JAI PRAKASH DUWEDI S/o - Late Kedar Dubey Resident of - Kanhauli, P.S. - Darauli, District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER
Though notice has been sent to O.P. No. 2, no one has turned up to assist the Court.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Siwan in ABP No. 1018 of 2021 whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Mairwan P.S. Case no. 178 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 324, 323, 354(B), 311 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
As per allegation in the FIR, appellant was Director in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.236 of 2022(4) dt.15-09-2022 2/3
Shreya Bharti Films Industry and he had taken an amount of Rs. 4,35,900/- from O.P. no. 2 for providing her roles in film. But neither she was provided any role in Cinema nor appellant has returned her money. On several demands made by her, appellant had used derogatory language by taking her caste name.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to ill motive. The present case is counter version of Mairwan P.S. Case No. 1849 of 2016. There is no reliable mode of transaction of money and no documentary proof to support the prosecution story. He has not taken the caste name of the informant in public view. No offence is made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act against them. He has got no criminal antecedent.
The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellant , the Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed in A.B.P. No. 1018 of 2021 is hereby set aside.
The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.236 of 2022(4) dt.15-09-2022 3/3
connection with Mairwan P.S. Case No. 178 of 2018 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST) Siwan.
(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J)
sushma/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail pending trial in a case involving serious charges including cheating, forgery, and offences under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the allegations against the appellant are sufficiently reliable to justify refusal of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jai Prakash Dubey @ Jai Prakash Duwedi
The State of Bihar
Dewanti Devi
Sunil Kumar Panwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
