Dismissed

Gautam Kumar Ghosal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2015A.B.A./1188/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by a former Works Manager accused of embezzlement. The petitioner admitted to misappropriation in a letter while the appointment letter made him overall incharge of the spare part section. The Court held that this admission and responsibility warranted refusing bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. No bail granted.

Gautam Kumar Ghosal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 1188 of 2015

¶2

Gautam Kumar Ghosal son of Sri Mihir Kumar Ghosal resident of village Kumardih, PO Bhatdih, PS Mohouda, Dhanbad, Distt. Dhanbad – 828305 (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

2.J.M.A. Stores Limited H/o Main Road, PO & PS Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, Distt. East Singhbhum, represented through Sanjeev Ranjan Srivastava, S/o Sri K. N. Srivastava, Manager, Legal cum duly constituted attorney of J.M.A. Stores Ltd. … Opposite Parties

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahni, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate

¶8

6/11.09.2015 Heard Mr. A. K. Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶9

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 224 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of the I.P.C.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, the alleged embezzlement is said to have been taken place the petitioner was employed as Works Manager at Dhansar branch, Dhanbad of opposite party no. 2 concern. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was never involved in the defalcation of an amount of Rs. 6 lacs and odds. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been implicated because of the fact that the petitioner had left the opposite party no. 2 – company and had joined another authorised service centre of Tata Motors at Dhanbad namely, Gupta Highway Services as Works Manager. It has also been submitted that a legal notice has been given to the petitioner on behalf of the company and in reply to the legal notice, the petitioner has categorically stated that he was deputed for work of repairing of vehicles and he is not related with store, spare parts or cash, as such the claim of the opposite party no. 2 is totally imaginary. It has further

¶11

-2-

¶12

been submitted that since no entrustment was made to the petitioner, the question of any embezzlement does not arise.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

¶14

Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has referred to the counter affidavit which has been filed by the complainant and has submitted that from the audit report shortage of materials was detected amounting to Rs. 6,15,886/-. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has himself admitted in his letter dated 25.05.2012 that it is a case of misappropriation of funds and since the petitioner was overall incharge in terms of Clause 6 (c) and (d) of appointment letter dated 08.03.2010, he is liable to compensate the total loss.

¶15

The appointment letter itself suggest that the responsibility of the petitioner as service head was that he was the sole incharge for allotment of work schedule to mechanic, supervisor and other staff in workshop and the spare part section within the workshop premises was to function within the supervision and control of the petitioner. The offer of appointment dated 08.03.2010 therefore suggest that the petitioner was also the overall incharge of the spare part section and in terms of his admission as contained in letter dated 25.05.2012 with respect to the misappropriation of funds, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner which is accordingly rejected.

¶16

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶17

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Gautam Kumar Ghosal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Kumar Ghosal v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Sri Krishna Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Debnu Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Akash Agarwal Alias Akash Kumar Agarwal Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lila Soren Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Bhola Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kali Ravidas and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand