The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an anticipatory bail application. The court rejected the prayer due to the petitioner's non-cooperation in investigation and the serious nature of the allegations against him.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected.
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 A.B.A. No. 291 of 2018
Amit Kumar Rana ….. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand . ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : APP
--------- C.A.V. on 14/09/2018 Pronounced on 18/09/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No.465/2015, corresponding to G.R.No.4385/2015 registered under Sections 406, 420, 379, 504, 506/34 of the IPC.
The present case has been registered on the basis of written report given by informant, alleging therein that he along with his friends as shown an advertisement in the name and style N.A. Franchisee under JSEB Franchiesee Kuju SubDivision and they got the applications @ Rs.200/- for their appointment from the said office and after submission of applications form, interview was conducted and thereafter petitioner along with 71 persons were selected for working as agent collector and they had deposited Rs.15,000-20,000/ each as security money and Doman Mahto along with petitioner collected total Rs.5.50,500/- from the candidates. The accounts of the selected candidates were opened and only one month salary was given to them and on query they were threatened of dire consequences. On the basis of these allegations, the present case has been filed.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on 16.01.2018. Thereafter, on 28.06.2018, concerned I.O was directed to record the statement of the petitioner and to produce up-to-date case diary.
Up-to-date case diary has been received along with the statement of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as the petitioner was an employee of N.A. Franchisee. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of misappropriated the amount against this petitioner, although there is specific allegation against Doman Mahto, who collected the money i.e Rs.5,50,500 from the selected candidates. So petitioner
-2-
deserves the privilege of the anticipatory bail.
On the other hand learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted up-to-date case diary along with the statement of the petitioner recorded by the concenred I.O.
Perused the case diary. It appears from the statement of informant and witnesses recorded at para no.04, informant, who supported the prosecution case, para-07, Gulab Ram, para-08, Durjjan, para-09, Umesh Thakur, who were also selected as agent to collect the revenue in rural area and they had also depsoited Rs.15-20 thousand, have also supported the prosecution case. Statement of the petitioner recorded by the I.O., which is exculpatory statement wherein stated that the security money was collected from the candidates by Doman Mahto and Project Manager, Ravindra Mahto.
Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and the allegations against the petitioner is serious in nature, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Fahim/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail in a non-bailable offence involving serious allegations of misappropriation.
Whether the petitioner's refusal to cooperate and serious nature of allegations preclude anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Kumar Rana
The State of Jharkhand
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
