The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case due to lack of cooperation with police investigation and inability to establish residential address.
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 330 of 2018
Amit Asthana @ Amit Kumar Asthana …… Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sanjay Kumar Das …… Opposite Parties ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate For the State :A.P.P
C.A.V on : 06/09/2018 Pronounced on:11/09/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Deoghar, Sarwan P.S. Case No. 109 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 751 of 2009 for the offence under sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on the basis of written report of informant Sanjay Kumar Das, Block Development Officer, Sarwan addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Sarwan P.S alleging therein that an agreement was arrived at with M/s Kiran Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd, Dhanbad on 20.03.2005 for installation of Solar Pumping system at Plot No. 995 situated at Hariyabad Bahiyar under Bhandaro Panchayat and on plot no. 402 situated at Dumaria on the recommendation of Sri R.K. Anand, the Member of Council of States which was signed by the petitioner in capacity of authorized agent of M/s Kiran Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd, Gayatrikung, Dhanbad. It is further alleged that after execution of agreement a sum of Rs, 7, 96, 400/- was released in favour of Firm being 40% of the sanctioned amount vide office order no. 160/05 dated 20.07.2005 of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. It is further alleged that the petitioner had to complete the captioned job within 45 days from the date of agreement but he did not even being with the installation work. On the basis of these and other allegations, the instant case has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Further, it has been
2
submitted that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, 70% of the total cost of Rs, 19,91,000 i.e Rs. 13,93,700/- was to be paid by the District Administration after supply of materials at the site of construction and installation, nothing was paid to the petitioner and it was only after much persuasion and cajoling is that the petitioner was sanctioned the 40% of the contractual amount, amounting to Rs, 7,96,400/ in terms of office order bearing no. 160/05 as contained in Memo no. 812 dated 20.07.2005 issued from office of the Dy. Commissioner Deoghar and now petitioner is ready to install the equipment at the proposed site which could not be done as some of the mechanical and electrical equipment had been damaged by rodents requiring replacements.
Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Case diary has been produced. From perusal of case diary, it appears that in para 12 , I.O has recorded the statement of witness- Koli Mirdha who has stated that after expiry of four years, the solar pumping set has not been installed and similar is the statement in para 13 of the case diary of the witness Aziz Mian. Further, in para 37 of the case diary I.O has recorded on 01.12.2009 that he had gone to Dhanbad for tracing the petitioner and recorded the statement of house owner Himanshu Kumar, son of late S.N. Roy who told that Amit Asthana, (petitioner) who is the owner of M/s Kiran Enery Solution Pvt. Limited used to live in his house on rent but about two years ago he has left the house and he does not know about his address. Further, in para 46, I.O has recorded the statement of witness Vikas Kumar Singh who has supported the case of prosecution and has stated that after release of the amount petitioner has not completed the work as per agreement.
Further, it appears that petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation and he has never appeared before the I.O and in his absence, after completion of
3
investigation, final form has been submitted.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature and his residential address could not be established till now, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Satyarthi/-
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation and address is not established.
Amit Asthana @ Amit Kumar Asthana
The State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Das
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court