SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Arun Kumar Mahto @ Arun Kr. Mahto - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
A.B.A. No. 10750 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl.P.P
For the Informant :Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 467/468/420/506 – Offence of Forgery of valuable security, will, etc – Cheating – Criminal intimidation – Held, petitioner undertakes to co-operate with investigation of case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by Court in matter of granting anticipatory bail – It is submitted that petitioner may be extended privilege of anticipatory bail - It further appears that petitioner has got three other criminal antecedents of similar nature although in those cases he is on bail but considering nature and the gravity of offence and material showing direct involvement of petitioner along with criminal background, Court not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner – Anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 182 of 2022 instituted under Sections 467/468/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. As per F.I.R., allegation is that the present petitioner is a businessman engaged in Real Estate, who received Rs. 60 lacs through cheque and cash on different dates for getting the informant’ son engaged in the business of Real Estate. It is alleged that the informant has been retired from service of Tata Steel, West Bokaro and had received huge amount of retiral dues which has been cheated by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that around 21-22 lacs has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has also provided land to the son of the informant for starting the Real Estate business. It is further submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Addl.P.P as well as learned counsel appearing for the O. P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the payer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. It appears that there is direct allegation of taking huge amount from the informant in the name of engaging to the Real Estate business to the son of the informant. It further appears that the petitioner has got three other criminal antecedents of similar nature although in those cases he is on bail but considering the nature and the gravity of offence and the material showing the direct involvement of the petitioner along with criminal background, I am not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top