Allowed

Smt Lalmuni Ram Alias Lal Muni Ram v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2016B.A./1689/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications arising from a corruption cheating conspiracy case were heard. The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to furnishing bond and co-operating with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties; must deposit passports and remain physically present till framing of charge.

Smt Lalmuni Ram Alias Lal Muni Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No.1623 of 2016

¶2

Yadunandan Prasad …… Petitioner

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party With B. A. No.1689 of 2016

¶4

Smt. Lalmuni Ram @ Lal Muni Ram …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I …… Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate

¶7

(in B.A. No.1623 of 2016) Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate (in B.A. No. 1689 of 2016) For the C.B.I : Mr. K. P. Deo, Advocate ( in both cases)

¶8

08/Dated: 01/08/2016

¶9

Since both the cases arised out of one and the same case, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with R.C. Case No. 10(A)/13D for the offence registered under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶12

This case has been lodged on the basis of source source information against the accused persons of this case alleging therein that during the year, 2008-09, the accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy with Smt. Bina Gupta, Smt. Sumita Devi, Smt. Kiran Devi all partners of M/s Rishikesh Pharma, Chas, Bokaro and with others in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy the Bokaro Steel Limited by way of making payment of fake and fraudulent medicines bills worth Rs. 23.73 lakhs against local purchase made for corporate social responsibility medical camps held in different parts of the state of Jharkhand and Bihar and thereby, caused wrongful loss of Rs. 23.73 lakhs to BSL and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Yadunandan Prasad in B.A. No. 1623 of 2016 has submitted that earlier the petitioner has moved anticipatory bail application before this Court vide A.B.A. No. 2640 of 2015 which was rejected. It is further submitted that petitioner is not the beneficiary of any of the alleged offence and he has not caused any wrongful loss to BSL by wrongful gain to himself. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an unblemished service record in course of his functioning as Chief Pharmacist. Petitioner is suffering from various

¶14

ailments, in support of his contention, medical prescription has been annexed to this application. The petitioner, is in custody since 01.02.2016 and C.B.I after investigation submitted charge-sheet in this case and cognizance has already been taken.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Lalmuni Ram @ Lal Muni Ram in B.A. No. 1689 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner is a nurse and she is not named in F.I.R. Other co-accused namely Satuendra Kumar has already been grated regular bail by this Court in B.A. No. 8613 of 2015. The petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2016 and C.B.I after investigation submitted charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken in this case.

¶16

In support of their contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and submits that the petitioners deserve the concession of bail.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. K. P. Deo, the learned standing counsel for the C.B.I opposed the prayer for bail.

¶18

Considering the fact that investigation in this case is complete, charge-sheet has been submitted, trial will take some time, I am inclined to granted bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge-C.B.I-cum-Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 10(A)/13D, subject to condition that one of the bailors must be local resident of Dhanbad district and the petitioners shall deposit their passport, (if any) and shall also co-operate with the trial. It is further directed that petitioners shall remain physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till framing of charge, failing which their bail bonds shall be cancelled.

¶19

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶20

Satyarthi/-

Smt Lalmuni Ram Alias Lal Muni Ram v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalmuni Ram Alias Lal Muni Ram v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantu Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dilip Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Aftab Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kishore Nayak Alias Abhay Jee Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jasbir Singh Alias Billey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Yadunandan Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through C B I