UPENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2008, whereas, the complaint petition was filed by the informant on 29.9.2012 i.e. after about three years and half months from the date of occurrence. He further submitted that the entire occurrence took place at New Delhi. It does not appear from the complaint petition that the informant has given any instance about the occurrence which took place within the jurisdiction of Jamtara court rather from the first information report it appears that the entire occurrence took place at New Delhi not at Jamtara. He also submitted that one of the accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2013 in A.B.A. No. 1993 of 2013 and the petitioners may be allowed similar privilege.

(3.) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that it has come in the order itself that Satyendra Kumar Pandey was allowed anticipatory bail because in his account said amount was never deposited.