Shambhu Nath Lohra vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with the case registered under Sections 406/420/120(B)/34 IPC has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. On perusal of the fardbeyan of the informant, it would be evident that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. However, in course of investigation, the I.O filed a petition in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner on the basis of the facts mentioned in paragraph 52 of the case diary. It is alleged against the petitioner that an amount of Rs.8,000/- was deposited in his bank account on 04.08.2011. However, even as per the case of the informant, the alleged occurrence of cheating occurred between 05.12.2011 and 12.12.2011. It is also submitted that the main allegation is against co-accused Sonam Kumari and A. K. Upadhyay. Hence, the petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Court below within a period of four weeks. If he surrenders before the Court below within the aforesaid period, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with Chutiya P.S. Case No. 270/2011(S), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.