Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Nath Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 17 November, 2021
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 8484 of 2021
Devendra Nath Prasad ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari , Adv.
Mr. Ankur Anand, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P.
02 / 17.11.2021Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No. 271 of 2021 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has cheated the State Government and by committing forgery prepared a false caste certificate showing himself to be "Gond", which comes under Scheduled Tribes whereas the petitioner is " Kandu", which comes under OBC category and not under Scheduled Tribes category and by this, the petitioner has taken huge sum of money from the Government. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this court for payment of retirement benefits. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of committing forgery and cheating of huge amount of money to the tune of several crores, which has accrued to him by way of cheating, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the forgery and also the recovery of government money, it is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 8480 of 2021
Pankaj Chaudhary @ Pankaj Choudhary
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Adv.
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad , Addl. P.P.
02 / 17.11.2021 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks.
In view of the personal undertaking given by learned senior counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Pakur Town P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021 registered under Sections 364/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 27.09.2021 passed in ABA No. 7202 of 2021 and the only fresh ground is that the petitioner is ready to pay some ad interim victim compensation, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner that he has abducted the informant-victim and committed rape upon her and the fact that the victim has supported the same in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is again rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in ABA No. 7202 of 2021.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-