CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Bindu Devi Dubey vs The State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 21 April 2017 · Citation: (2017) 04 JH CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-420>Section 420</a> - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property · <a href=2489>Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881</a>, <a href=2489-138>Section 138</a> - Dishonour of cheque for in
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
961 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 387 words
1.

Heard Mr. K. R. Keshav Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj in Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015 by which a condition has been imposed upon the petitioner that one of the sureties should be his close relative and the other surety should be a permanent resident of Palamau.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bangalore at Karnataka. Learned counsel also submits that he is ready to comply with all the conditions which has been mentioned in the order dated 13.04.2017 except of producing the local surety. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no connection with the said place and he is unable to comply with the condition granted by the learned court below with regard to furnishing of a local surety. It has thus been submitted that the order dated 13.04.2017 be modified and the father and father-in-law of the petitioner be permitted to the sureties in respect to the said case.

4.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.

5.

The petition which has been filed before this Court reveals that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. It appears that a complaint case was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj had granted bail on 13.04.2017 on the condition that the petitioner should produce a local resident as a surety and he was also directed to surrender his passport before the court below. The petitioner is ready to comply with the conditions imposed upon him vide order dated 13.04.2017 save and except the condition with respect to the local surety.

6.

Since the petitioner has been able to show sufficient cause in not producing the local surety the order dated 13.04.2017 with respect to furnishing the sureties is modified to the extent that the father-in-law as well as the father shall stand as sureties and the other conditions imposed upon the petitioner by the learned court below shall remain unchanged.

7.

This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned modification.