High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 09 JH CK 0039

Amrul Ansari @ Waril Ansari @ Paril Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 September 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
A.B. A. No. 2577 Of 2020

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 339 words

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

Defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 674 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 138 of N.I. Act.

It has been alleged that the petitioner and Ram Balak Singh had obtained Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant for the sale of a trailor. The trailor was never handed over and a compromise was arrived at in which cheques were issued which got dishonoured.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint petition would reveal that the amount, in question, was handed over to the accused Ram Balak Singh. It has further been stated that so far as the cheques purportedly issued by the petitioner is concerned, the same was obtained by force and coercion at the police station and with respect to the said act, the petitioner has already filed a complaint case against the O.P. No. 2, which is still pending.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that on 03.10.2018 an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the complainant in which the petitioner had agreed to return back the amount, but, since he had failed to do so cheques were issued by him which, however, got dishonoured subsequently due to stop payment.

Thus, it appears from the allegations that neither the trailor was handed over to the complainant nor the amount returned back and the subsequent complaint case filed by the petitioner may be by way of defence regarding the cheques which had been issued by the petitioners.

The submissions of both the learned counsels, therefore, indicate about the complicity of the petitioner as has been recorded in the complaint petition and in such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This application, accordingly, stands rejected.