Rustam Ansari v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 420, 467, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 2 08-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegation against the petitioner is that he applied for loan before the Bank showing him as an Army Personnel and produced certain letters and documents from his employer and on the strength of which an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was sanctioned as loan to him and transferred to his Saving Bank Account. Subsequently in the course of verification of the documents it was found that the documents are forged and the Official stated to have issued them was not posted at the place nor an Army Headquarters stated to be at Aurangabad was there at any time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27856 of 2013 (2) dt.08-10-2013 2 petitioner is an Army Officer who has since retired and the loan was given to him after proper verification. It is further submitted that the entire loan amount under the same loan account has been returned by the petitioner and the account has been liquidated and closed with interest on 24.10.2011, in support of which he has filed a certificate dated 10.11.2011 issued by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Motihari. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specially considering the fact that the entire loan amount has been returned with interest, it is directed that the petitioner Rustam Ansari, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari, in connection with Darpa P.S.Case No.79 of 2011 subject to the other conditions as mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.