Rupesh Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard 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 after the

lockdown is over.

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.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Doranda P.S. case no. 404 of 2019 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and

406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co- accused has

forged documents by making false voter I.D. card and Aadhar card I.D. in the name of Mohan Prasad and they have swindled away several lakhs of

rupees from Union Bank, Shyamli branch, Doranda and the petitioner has been identified by real Mohan Prasad to be the person who obtained

photocopy of the I.T.R., voter card, PAN card from him. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the

petitioner is false and the main allegation is against Rakesh Kumar. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has

been in judicial custody for a considerable period of time, hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of forging the documents

for swindling away several lakhs of rupees from the Union Bank by way of cheating and forgery hence, there is every chance of petitioner

absconding if released on bail hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.

Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner of defrauding the bank of several lakhs of rupees by way of cheating and forgery , this Court is

of considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is

rejected.

Keeping in view the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is

directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court.

It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID- 19 pandemic.