Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Sita Shrivastava @ Sita ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1787 of 2021
------
Smt. Sita Shrivastava @ Sita Srivastava
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranish Kr. Mishra, Advocate
: Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No.03 Dated- 06.07.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to
remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two
weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are
ignored for the present.
Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court
for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Lohardaga P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 registered under sections 406/420
of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner forcibly got
executed an agreement and obtained one cheque of the informant
and subsequently instituted Complaint Case No. 315 of 2018 in the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga and vide
judgment dated 29.11.2019, the informant has been convicted in the
said case and thereafter this false case has been instituted only to
harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the allegations
against the petitioner are all false and the informant received
Rs.1,00,000/- as advance from the petitioner for selling the land and
later on the informant took a sum of Rs.2,60,000 from the petitioner
for the said purpose and subsequently the informant issued two
cheques of Rs.1,80,000/- each which were dishonored due to
insufficient fund and after notice, when the informant did not pay
the money, the petitioner instituted Complaint Case No. 315 of 2018
in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga wherein
the informant has been convicted. It is then submitted that the
petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant
opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order, she shall be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned C.J.M., Lohardaga, in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case
No.09 of 2020 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate
with the investigation of the case and appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish
her mobile number and a copy of her Aadhar Card in the court
below with the undertaking that she will not change her mobile
number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions
laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
