Partly allowed

Ranju Alias Ashasa Bibi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2014B.A./11723/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Collection of bail orders issued by a single-judge Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The Court granted bail to several petitioners accused of theft, arms offenses, gang violence, and money laundering, imposing Rs. 10,000 bonds with sureties. Bail was denied to one petitioner heavily involved in a multi-crore fraudulent money transfer scheme involving signed cheques provided to co-acc

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners in the first five and sixth cases; bail denied to petitioner in the seventh case involving fraudulent transfer of money.

Ranju Alias Ashasa Bibi Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B. A. No. 1101 of 2014

¶3

Balbir Singh ...… Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶5

2/ 13.2.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the

¶6

Prosecution.

¶7

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1968 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 414 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The case relates to recovery of stolen coal from a coal depot. The

¶9

petitioner was not apprehended at the spot.

¶10

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Balbir Singh on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Daya Ram, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st class, Dhanbad, or his successor, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1968 of 2013.

¶11

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶12

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶14

B. A. No. 1117 of 2014

¶15

Wakil Khan @ Akil Khan ...… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶16

2/ 13.2.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the

¶17

Prosecution.

¶18

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 904 of 2013, for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The case relates to theft of a car.

¶20

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Wakil Khan @ Akil Khan on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 72 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 904 of 2013.

¶21

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶24

B. A. No. 1119 of 2014

¶25

Sahid Alam 2. Sonu @ Sahid Alam ...… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶26

2/ 13.2.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the

¶27

Prosecution.

¶28

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 157 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 676 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

¶29

The petitioners were apprehended with other co-accused persons on 11.10.2013. There is no recovery of any fire arm from the petitioners.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners, Sahid Alam and Sonu @ Sahid Alam on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 157 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 676 of 2013.

¶31

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶32

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶34

B. A. No. 1144 of 2014

¶35

Sunil Das 2. Ranjit Das ...… Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Deo, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶36

2/ 13.2.2014

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the

¶38

Prosecution.

¶39

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 496 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1492 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 25 (1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

¶40

The petitioners were apprehended on 11.8.2013 and from the possession of petitioner No.1, one country-made revolver was recovered. There is no recovery of any fire-arm from the petitioner No.2.

¶41

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners, Sunil Das and Ranjit Das on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 496 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 1492 of 2013.

¶42

¶43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶44

B. A. No. 11723 of 2013

¶45

Ranju @ Aayasha Bibi ...… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶46

2/ 13.2.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

¶47

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No. 17 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 215 of 2008, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (1-B)(a),26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act and Section 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

¶48

There was an encounter between the police party and the extremists, in which, it appears that some extremists were killed. However, it appears that there was no injury on the police side and no one was apprehended at the spot.

¶49

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Ranju @ Aayasha Bibi on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, in connection with Ranka P.S. Case No. 17 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 215 of 2008.

¶50

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶51

¶52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶53

B. A. No. 11727 of 2013

¶54

Roshan Khalkho @ Mona ...… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶55

5/ 13.2.2014 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the case diary

¶56

has already been called for in B.A No. 11533 of 2013.

¶57

Let this application be listed along-with B.A No. 11533 of 2013 when

¶58

the case diary is received in that case.

¶59

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶60

¶61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶62

B. A. No. 11714 of 2013

¶63

Shiv Shankar Prsad ...… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. ...… Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA

¶64

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate. ------

¶65

2/ 13.2.2014

¶66

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

¶67

C.B.I.

¶68

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Case No. R.C 221/11/E/002, for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 43 (a) (j) r/w Section 66 of IT Act.

¶69

The case relates to fraudulent transfer of Rs.12.50 crores through R.T.G.S transaction from the State Bank of India, A.D.B. Muzaffarpur Branch, out of which, Rs.12 crores was credited in the account of one Maharani Automobiles, Ratu Road, Ranchi, maintained with H.D.F.C. Bank, Ranchi. The other amount of Rs.50 crores was credited into the account of one Shiv Shakti Traders, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur, maintained by the Syndicate Bank, Bhagwanpur Branch, Muzaffarpur.

¶70

The present case is concerned with the credit of Rs.12 Crores in the account of Maharani Automobiles, Ratu Road, Ranchi, of which the petitioner is the proprietor. The F.I.R shows that out of the amount of Rs.12 crores, Rs.11.98 crores was transfered through cheque in the account of one M/s Velocity International, out of which, Rs.1.85 crores was credited into the personal account of one Sandeep Mishra who was the Director of Velocity International. The rest of the amount was freezed in the account of Velocity International, before it could be further transferred or withdrawn.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he had only offered his account number for the transaction in good faith, but the account number provided by the petitioner was misused and Rs.12 crores was credited in the account of this petitioner. It is further submitted that there was no monetary gain to the petitioner and in any event, the role of the petitioner was only confined to the conspiracy angle and the other co-accused, Pawan Kumar Singh whose role was also found from the conspiracy angle, has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 30.10.2013 in B.A No. 7823 of 2013. Submitting that the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than that of the co-accused, Pawan Kumar Singh, the prayer for bail has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶72

-2-

¶73

Learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has pointed out from the charge-sheet, that during the investigation, it was found that the petitioner's firm was engaged in the building body of spare parts of the buses and trucks etc. The co-accused, Vinay Yadav who was doing the business of scraps, approached the petitioner for giving his account details for the transfer the money of some ‘ Netajee’ . It has also been found that the said co-accused had agreed to provide the details of account of the petitioner to the other co-accused persons for fraudulent transfer of money for 20% of the amount as consideration, but the matter was settled at 5% of the amount. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner was heavily in debt due to the losses suffered by his firm and accordingly, he agreed to give the details of his account to Vinay Yadav out of greed for money and he also provided his signed cheques to Vinay Yadav, which was in turn given to other co-accused persons for fraudulent transfer of the money, in the account of the petitioner. It is apparent that on the basis of the signed cheques by this petitioner, the amount of Rs.11.98 crores was transferred from the account of this petitioner to the account of Velocity International. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. accordingly, submitted that there is direct involvement of the petitioner in the fraudulent transfer of money and has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶74

Upon hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the petitioner had agreed to give the details of his amount out of greed and he had also provided the signed cheques to the accused persons for using his account for the fraudulent transfer of Rs.12 crores. Out of the said amount of Rs.12 crores, Rs.11.98 crores was transfered to the account of Velocity International, whereas the balance amount remained in the account of the petitioner.

¶75

In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that there is direct involvement of the petitioner in the fraudulent transfer of Rs.12 crores, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Shiv Shankar Prsad on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

¶76

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶77

BS/

Ranju Alias Ashasa Bibi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranju Alias Ashasa Bibi v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Matin Ahmed Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Rajak Alias Mithlesh Rajak Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Hanuk Kandir Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Batai Lohra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahendra Hansda Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Laxmi Ram Alias Lakshmi Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand