Jharkhand High Court
Shiv Pujan Singh Yadav @ Sheo Pujan Singh ... vs Union Of India Through C.B.I. on 16 May, 2011
Author: Pradeep Kumar
Bench: Pradeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 4006 of 2010
Jaymati Devi @ Jaymati Kuwnar & others..........Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand.........Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Adv.
For the State :A.P.P.
I. A. No. 238 of 2011
3/16.5.2011This Interlocutory Application has been filed for modification of the order dated 8.10.210 passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 4004 of 2010 to the extent of extension of the period of appearance before the court below.
The anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner in A.B.A. No. 4004 of 2010 on 8.10.2010 and was directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks, but he could not surrender. Therefore, the time of extension, cannot be accepted.
The aforesaid I.A. No. 238 of 2011 stands rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file afresh anticipatory bail application.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.) jk/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 262 of 2011 Sudan Mandal @ Sudan Chandra Mandal..........Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand.........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Radhey Shyam, Adv.
For the State :A.P.P.
I. A. No. 905 of 2011
3/16.5.2011 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for
early hearing of A.B.A. No. 262 of 2011.
Let A. B. A. No. 262 of 2011 be listed on 20.5.2011 along with case diary.
The aforesaid I.A. No. 905 of 2011 stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.) jk/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9681 of 2010 Pramod Kumar Singh......Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand.........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
4/16.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the
State.
This is an application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on 3.11.2010 vide B. A. No. 6302 of 2010 with a liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after commitment of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has renewed on the ground that the case was committed on 3.9.2010, but till date even the charges have not been framed. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A. D. J. F.T.C.IV, Dhanbad in connection with S. T. No. 475 of 2010 arising out of Kenduadih P. S. Case No. 42 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 2132 of 2010, subject to condition that one of the bailors would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court (ii) the petitioner shall present before the Court below once in every month on the date fixed, otherwise his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.) jk/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 211 of 2011 Shiv Pujan Singh Yadav @ Sheo Pujan Singh Yadav......Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I..........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan
5/16.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
C.B.I.
This is an application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Earlier the prayer for bail for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 2.7.2010 in B.A. No. 3459 of 2010 with an observation that the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, was directed to see that the case is transferred to running court, but it appears that the same has not been done by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the case is still pending and even the charges have not been framed. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner was caught raid handed by taking 5,000/.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the long custody since 15.12.2009, hence, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri N. Ali, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in connection with R. C. Case No. 24(A)/2009 (R), subject to condition that one of the bailors would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court (ii) the petitioner shall present before the Court below once in every month on the date fixed, otherwise his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
jk/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 1017 of 2011
Saroj Sao....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand.........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagannath Mahato, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
4/16.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 143, 341, 353, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Chowka P. S. Case No. 52 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 727 of 2010.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within 2 weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M. Seraikella in connection with Chouka P. S. Case No. 52 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 727 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and further conditions that (i) one of the bailors would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.)
jk/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A. B. A. No. 1018 of 2011
Dilip Kumar Munda....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand.........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
2/16.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 324, 354, 34 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code 1908 ( hereinafter refer to as I.P.C.), prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with Kanke P S. Case No. 72 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 5060 of 2010.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovenamed petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within 2 weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ ( rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Kanke P. S. Case No. 72 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. No. 5060 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and further conditions that (i) one of the bailors would be local resident having property within the jurisdiction of the Court.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.) jk/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1020 of 2011 Dharamvir Bhadoria....... Petitioner Versus Union of India through SPCBI........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Adv.
For the State : A.P.P.
2/16.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the C.B.I.
The petitioner, who is an accused for offence under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1d) of P.C. Act, 1988, prays for anticipatory bail expressing apprehending of his arrest in connection with R. C. 20A/2009 ( R).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is a Contractor, was given the construction of road work and the allegation against him is that the petitionercontractor was not authorized to purchase bitumen from the Government Oil Companies. However, without purchasing any bitumen from Indian Oil Company, Gamharia the petitionercontractor submits 37 nos. of bitumen invoices showing purchase of 217.863 MT of packed bitumen. It is further submitted that as per supplementary affidavit at page 21 the C.B.I. has given a finding in their report that 37 invoices were genuine and as such the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer and submits that by submitting false invoices 37 in numbers showing purchase of bitumen from Indian Oil Company, Gamaharia the petitionercontractor caused a loss Rs. 79,11,559/ to the Government. Relying on the report of C.B.I. filed by the petitioner in his supplementary affidavit as Annexure1 at page21 wherein he has stated that no doubt investigation disclosed that these 37 invoices were actually genuine. But, in fact, vide these invoices, packed bitumen were procured not for the execution of the work under dispute, but for the road work of National Highway Division, Jamshedpur. This fact was also confirmed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Gamaharia, Jamshedpur vide their letter No. JSR/LPG/OPS/39 dated 21.12.2009 and thus, by filling 37 invoices showing purchase of packed bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Gamahari, which was purchased for National Highways he cheated the Government to the tune of Rs. 79,11,559/ and therefore the petitioner contractor does not deserve anticipatory bail.
After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the C.B.I's report clearly states that the purchase shown by 37 invoices of 217.863 MT of packed bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gamaharia was meant for National Highway, Jamshedpur and not for this contract and as such by falsely producing those invoices, the petitioner caused a heavy loss of Rs. 79,11,559/ to the government and hence the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar, J.) jk/