Jharkhand High Court
Jeetendra Singh @ Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.2687 of 2022
------
1. Jeetendra Singh @ Jitendra Singh
2. Lajpat Rai @ Lajpat Rai Jain
3. Babulal Mishra
4. Santosh Prasad Gupta @ Santosh Kr. Gupta
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P
For the Informant : Mr. P.K. Sinha, Adv.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 26.04.2022
Heard the parties.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No.
186 of 2021 arising out of Complaint Case No.806 of 2021 instituted under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners
have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation
against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 along with the co-accused
person prepared a forged agreement on the basis of forged signature. It is
submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false and the dispute
between the parties is purely a civil dispute. It is next submitted that the
informant has already filed Title Suit No.19 of 2003 against the petitioner nos.1
and 3 which is sub-judice before the civil court of Giridih and suppressing the
material facts, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners. It is next
submitted that the petitioner no.3 has also filed a title suit bearing Title Suit
No.26 of 2007 which stood dismissed for default. It is further submitted that the
informant filed complaint case no.1224 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No.900 of
2008 wherein vide order dated 05.12.2018, learned court below did not find
sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the informant has also filed Bengabad P.S. Case No.200 of 2014
and the said case culminated in acquittal of the petitioners vide judgment
dated 22.09.2016 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. It is lastly
submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of
the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State being assisted by learned
counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the
Court within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or
surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Giridih in connection with Bengabad
P.S. Case No. 186 of 2021 arising out of Complaint Case No.806 of 2021 with
the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and
appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and
furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an
undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the
pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
