High Court Jharkhand High Court

Raju Yadav @ Md.Raja @ Tanweer Lam vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Raju Yadav @ Md.Raja @ Tanweer Lam vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2011
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                          A.B.A. No. 2570 of 2011

                     Raju Yadav @ Md. Raja @ Tanweer Alam                     ... ... Petitioner
                                               -V e r s u s -
                     The State of Jharkhand                             ... ... Opposite Party
                                        ...

              CORAM: -       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY

              For the Petitioner   : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate.
              For the State:       : APP


     03/12.09.2011

The petitioner is accused in connection with Marafari P.S. Case
No. 22/2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 516/2010 (C.P. No. 484/09)
registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.

It reveals from the complaint that the accused persons, in a
planned manner, cheated the informant and realised a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-
on the pretext to provide him job in Indian Railways. An appointment letter
was also handed over but it was found forged.

It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the First 
Information  Report and one of the accused Sanjay has been granted bail
on the ground that they have settled dispute with the informant.

Learned counsel for the State, though opposed the prayer but he
is not prepared with the Case Diary.

I have personally gone through the Case Diary and from perusal
of para 104, it appears that the petitioner is the persons who had given fake
appointment letter to the informant after realising money.

In the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and
the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below and pray for
regular bail, which shall be considered in its own merit without being
prejudiced by this order. The prayer for anticipatory bail is accordingly
rejected.

(D. N. Upadhyay, J.)
RC