This judgment is an anticipatory bail application where the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayer. The court held that the serious nature of the allegations involving breach of trust and forgery precluded the grant of bail.
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. 419 of 2018 Ranjan Kumar …… Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Alamgir Khan …… Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate For the State :A.P.P For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Vineet Prkash, Advocate
C.A.V on : 03/10/2018 Pronounced on:05/10/2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 770 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 2267 of 2016 for the offence under sections 420, 409, 120B, 467, 468, 471, r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on the basis of complaint petition filed by the complainant Alamgir Khan which was sent to the police station under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for institution of F.I.R which was registered as Sadar P.S. Case No. 770 of 2016 in which it has been alleged by the informant that he is working as Branch Manager in Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited and he is acting as authorized signatory. It is further alleged that the petitioner is product executive. Loanee Anil Kumar Mishra and Nitish Yadav come and contacted with product executive with necessary paper for getting the loan, Product executive Ranjan Kumar is responsible for verification and inspection of the paper for the loanee and granter. Agreement dated 14.09.2015 is executed between company and Anil Kumar Mishra. On the basis of recommendation and paper verification by product executive Ranjan Kumar (petitioner) accordingly company recommended loan Rs, 800,000/- for running /transporting vehicle No. JH0956396. It is further alleged that this petitioner in connivance with other co-accused persons recommended for sanction of altogether loan of Rs, 25,00,000/- on the basis of
2
forged documents and the same was disbursed into the accounts of other coaccused persons by the company and thereby the company sustained a loss of Rs, 25,00,000/- On the basis of these and another allegation, the instant case has been lodged.
It appears that under order dated 16.03.2018 notice was directed to be issued upon newly added O.P. No. 2 pursuant to which petitioner and O.P. No. 2 were physically present before this Court on 06.09.2018 and in their presence possibility of reconciliation was made but could not be succeeded and the matter was heard on merit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail application of the petitioner has submitted that even according to prosecution, petitioner was not the authority for sanctioning of loan nor he has transferred the loan amount on the account of lonee. Further, it has been submitted that it is no where alleged that any property or with dominion over any property has been entrusted to this petitioner and hence, there is no question of breach of trust and hence, section 409 of I.P.C cannot be attracted. Further, it has been submitted that is no where alleged that this petitioner has forced any document and hence section 467, 468, 471 cannot be attracted against the petitioner. Further, it has been submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and produced case diary.
Case diary has been produced. 9 , I.O has recorded the statement of witness Amarjeet Kumar, in para 10, Nishant Kumar Singh in para 11, Liladhar SAhu who all have supported the case of prosecution and have stated that loss of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been caused to the company. Further, in para 16 I.O has recorded the restatement of the informant who has supported the case of prosecution.
3
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records and taking into consideration that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX.
Satyarthi/-
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving serious allegations under sections 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Ranjan Kumar
State of Jharkhand
Alamgir Khan
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court