Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19216 (JHR)

NISHI PRIYA ALIAS NISHI KUMARI BARAIK v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./4537/2024 · 2025-04-22

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:11937 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4537 of 2024 Nishi Priya @ Nishi Kumari Baraik, daughter of Jay Prakash Baraik, resident of village Laxman Nagar, P.O and P.S and District- Gumla. .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Ac to SC Mines-III For the Informant Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate. …..... 08/22.04.2025 This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, as the petitioner has been allegedly implicated in a criminal case registered under Section(s) 420, 422, 464, 468, 477, 505 and 506/34 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. Opportunity was given to the State as well as informant to oppose the bail, which they availed and opposed. The informant was duped by the petitioner, Ravi Kumar, Harshit Vishwakarma etc. The allegation is that the loan was sanctioned by the accused persons in favour of the informant but the extra amount was withdrawn by them and distributed amongst themselves. This petitioner also received a sum of Rs.73,000/-, though the petitioner claims that this amount has come for other purpose. The petitioner presented herself to be a Bank staff which actually the petitioner was not. Paragraph 28 of the case diary clearly shows that Rs.73,501/- was transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of this petitioner. Thus there is some element of common intention to cheat the informant. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, the privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected. This application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner surrenders, her case will be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)