Dilip Kumr Yadav vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Vineet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored. The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 440/2012.

It has been alleged that the informant was allured to deposit Rs.3,22,800/- in different account on the pretext that the informant has won a lottery of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

It appears that the informant had deposited Rs. 25,000/- in the account of the petitioner which was also admitted by the petitioner as per the impugned order.

Mr. Vineet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as a pre-condition for bail and in support of his contention he has referred to an order passed by this Court in the case of a co-accused in A.B.A. No. 2552 of 2019.

On consideration of the fact that similarly situated co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I am inclined to allow this application. The petitioner is accordingly directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks along with a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- drawn in favour of the informant and if the condition as noted above is fulfilled, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 440/2012, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It the undertaking as given by the petitioner is adhered to the learned court below shall notice the informant and thereafter shall handover the draft to him on proper verification.

This application stands disposed of.