High Court Jharkhand High Court

Sainul Mian @ Sainul Ansari & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Sainul Mian @ Sainul Ansari & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2011
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                  A.B.A. No. 2978 of 2011
                                         ------
              1. Sainul Mian @ Sainul Ansari
              2. Enamul Haque
              3. Samsul Ansari @ Md. Samsul Ansari
              4. Dilawar Mian @ Dilawar Ansari                 ...     ......         Petitioners
                                         Versus

              The State of Jharkhand                    ..     ....    ...           Opp. Party
                                          ------

              CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY
                                       ------
              For the Petitioners      :      Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate
              For the State            :      A.P.P.
                                       -----

02    /14.10.2011

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners are accused in connection with Barwadih P.S. Case No.13 of 2011

corresponding to G.R. Case No.114 of 2011 registered under Sections 471, 467, 468,

406, 119, 120-B & 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the Court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

It reveals from the written report that a contract for construction of check

dam under water harvesting scheme was allotted in the name of husband of

Dhanpatia Devi but the amount was withdrawn by the petitioners and the work was

not done properly.

It is submitted that the petitioners have committed no forgery nor they have

defalcated any amount. They have been falsely roped in this case.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and drawn my

attention towards the case diary according to which these petitioner did not

discharge the liability for which they were entrusted.

Considering the fact that Government money has been defalcated, I am not

inclined to grant the petitioners, above named, anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Petitioners are

directed to surrender in the court below within a fortnight for seeking regular bail

which will be considered by the Court below without being prejudiced with this order.

(D.N. Upadhyay, J)
NKC