CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Md. Rizwan @ Rizwan And Ors vs State of Jharkhand And Anr

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 October 2020 · Citation: (2020) 10 JH CK 0094

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. S. N. Pathak, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
anticipatory bail application No. 1680 of 2020
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

6 paragraphs · 352 words

In view of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 AM onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 219 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 2093 of 2014 for the offences registered under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned APP for the State as well as Mr. A. Shagir, learned counsel for the opposite Party No.2.

Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that no case under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. It is case of money transaction through agreement and no dishonest intention has ever been made by the petitioners and as such, it is a case of civil dispute. There is no direct allegation against the petitioners and the entire story speaks about taking friendly loan. He lastly argues that the petitioners are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed upon them by this Hon'ble Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioners may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and jointly submit that there is no denial of the petitioners that they have received the money and have not returned the same to the informant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also there is a direct allegation against the petitioners, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected.