Dinesh Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Jharkhand High Court

Dinesh Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2011

Bench: Jaya Roy

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      A.B.A. No 2272 of 2011

           Dinesh Prasad Singh                 ....... Petitioner
                                              Versus
           State of Jharkhand                 ..... Opp.Party
                                 -----
           CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
                                 -----
           For the Petitioner(s)     : Mr. Nilesh Kumar , Advocate
           For the State            :  Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, APP
                                     ------
03/10.8.2011

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this application for granting him anticipatory bail as there is apprehension of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No. 103 of 2011 (G.R. No.1738 of 2011), for the offence under Section 420/120B of the I.P.C., pending in the court of C.J.M., Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.. It is also contended that from the F.I.R. itself it is clear that the alleged payment has been paid and duly received by Pankaj Pandey, co-accused of the present case. Thus, the petitioner neither received any amount nor he assured for giving the job to the informant.

4. The counsel for the State Mrs. Sadhna Kumar has submitted that the prosecution in brief has been instituted on the basis of self written statement of Gopi Bauri alleging therein that he was introduced by Dinesh Singh and his cousin Bablu Singh @ Rakesh Mahto to one Pankaj Pandey, who for giving job in SAIL demanded a sum of Rupees three lacs. The present petitioner not only introduced the informant, but also assured that if the job was not given, he will return the entire money and also said that the said Pankaj Pandey has already given the service to his brother Sabu Bhai in SAIL, at Durgapur. On this assurance, the informant paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.three lacs to the aforesaid Pankaj Pandey. After some days, the said Pankaj Pandey has given him a joining letter of SAIL at Durgapur, but when the informant went there and enquired, he found the said letter of joining as fake. It has further come in the F.I.R. that on repeated demand when Pankaj Pandey nor the present petitioner returned the money, on the other hand, they threatened the informant to kill. The said Pankaj Pandey also told the informant that he should claim money from Dinesh Singh and his cousin. Even on demand made to the petitioner, neither of the aforesaid persons returned the said money to the informant. Thus, there is a direct allegation against the petitioner also.

5. Considering the submissions and considering the materials on record, I find that there are allegations against the present petitioner that he introduced and also assured the informant with the co-accused Pankaj Pandey which clearly proves his involvement and this racket which is very rampant in this part of the country. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Jaya Roy, J) SI

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court