This court rejected the petitioner's renewed bail application. The court refused to reconsider the earlier rejection, noting the petitioner had offered his bank account for a fraudulent transfer of Rs. 12 crores, with a significant portion moving to Velocity International. The co-accused status was not deemed a ground for change.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 6285 of 2014 Shiv Shankar Prasad ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan --------
04/ 14.11.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the CBI.
The petitioner has been made accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 43 (a) (j) r/w Section 66 of the I.T. Act, in connection with R.C. Case No. 221 / 11/ E / 2002.
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 12 crores was credited in the account of one Maharani Automobiles, Ratu Road, Ranchi, maintained with H.D.F.C. Bank, Ranchi. The petitioner is the proprietor of this Maharani Automobiles, Ratu Road, Ranchi. In view of the fact that it has come during investigation that the petitioner had offered his bank account for fraudulent R.T.G.S. transaction of the amount of Rs. 12 crores, and out of the said amount of Rs. 12 crores, 11.98 crores was transferred to the account of Velocity International, bail application of this petitioner was earlier rejected on merits by a detailed order dated 13.2.2014 in B.A. No. 11714 of 2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail submitting that the other co-accused Vinay Yadav, also stands on similar footing, has been granted bail.
In the facts of this case, in view of the fact that the entire amount of Rs. 12 crores was transferred to the account of this petitioner, out of which, Rs. 11.98 crores was transferred from the account of this petitioner to the account of Velocity International, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner, Shiv Shankar Prasad. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
Amitesh/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer for bail should be reconsidered when the accused offered his account for a fraudulent RTGS transaction of Rs. 12 crores.
Shiv Shankar Prasad
The State of Jharkhand
H. C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court