Dismissed

Antul Verma v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Oct 2016A.B.A./2871/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court bench rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged cheque fraud and money laundering. The court also directed the police to incorporate sections of the IT Act into the charges due to electronic evidence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; direction issued to police to file prayer for adding IT Act sections in charges.

Antul Verma Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2871 of 2016

¶2

Antul Verma …… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P

¶7

03/Dated: 17/10/2016

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gonda P.S. Case No 33 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 987 of 2016, for the offence registered under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The present case has been lodged on the basis of written report of informant namely, Sourabh Prasad, District land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi alleging therein that he received a letter dated 18.02.2016 of Canara Bank, Kanke Road Branch, Ranchi wherein it has been mentioned that pay of Rs. Two crore one lacs forty five thousand two hundred thirty only through cheque no. 704395 to 7043398 by R.T.G.S. From his bank account. It is further alleged that those cheques are used by the bank for making payment through R.T.G.S that cheque already kept in his custody without used or signed till date. It is further alleged that those cheques were duly signed by the then Land Acquisition Officer namely, Surjit Singh on 11.02.2016 and 12.02.2016 and same amount have been transferred by the R.T.G.S but he has been already transferred from his part. It is further alleged that specimen signatures of Sri Saurav Prasad the District Land Acquisition Officer were sent to different offices and banks and one set of such specimen signature was also received at Canara Bank Kanke Road, Ranchi. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this Case by the informant and Branch Manager of Canara Bank due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that accused person is doing business of forming website of needy persons in the name & style of M/s Swastik Solution and during the business course one person namely Kafil Iliyash had came to petitioner's firm for formate of his website in the year, 2010 and after that both are introduced to each other. The accused petitioner without any doubt withdrew the total amount and handed over to Md. Kafil Iliyash then Md. Kafil Iliyash counted down amount and found correct then both

¶12

returned back but after, that incident Md. Kafil Iliyash has not contacted to him till date.

¶13

Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that it is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs. 49,62,000/- was credited in the current account of the petitioner's firm M/s Swastik Solution and he has withdrawn the amount through three cheques. Learned A.P.P referred para 39, 68, 69, 129 of the case diary.

¶14

Case diary was called for, which has been received. From perusal of para 39 of the case diary, it appears that Rs, 49,62,000/- was withdrawn from the account of District Land Acquisition Officer through cheques. From perusal of para 129 of the case diary, it appears that confessional statement of Manoj Mehta has been recorded who has confessed his guilt and the complicity of this petitioner.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

¶16

It appears that after investigation, police has submitted final form under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code against some of the accused persons but provision of I. T. Act has not been added although the bank statement and other documents show that there are electronic evidence.

¶17

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi is directed to personally look into the matter and move to the Trial Court by making prayer for adding sections of I.T. Act.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned A.P.P for its transmission to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

¶19

Satyarthi/-

Antul Verma v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antul Verma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Chandra Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arif Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

Jitesh Kumar Singh Alias Pintu Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Imtiyaz Khan Alias Bablu Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vinod Ram Alias Binod Bhuiyan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Paswan Alias Rabindra Paswan Alias Rabo Vs The State Of Jharkhand