This judgment rejects an application for anticipatory bail filed by a petitioner accused of forgery and cheating. The High Court refused bail on the grounds that a previous application was rejected, investigation is ongoing, and facts presented did not justify privilege.
Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; order dated 15.03.2018.
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. 711 of 2018
Kishori Ram …… Petitioner
Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Mala Singh …........Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P
C.A.V. on 09.03.2018 Pronounced on 15.03.2018
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No.155 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4575 of 2016 for the offence under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in short, is that this case has been lodged on the basis of written report of informant-Mala Singh on 13.11.2016 alleging therein that her husband was working in Indian Oil Depot, he was died on 24.10.1993. It is further alleged that the informant deposited Rs. 03 lacs as fixed deposit in the Bank of India, Maniatand Branch on 01.02.2007. The said Fixed Deposit was renewed after one year, when the informant approached the bank in the year, 2011, she was told that the fixed deposit certificate is forged. Informant received a letter in September, 2015 wherein it was mentioned that the loan amount of Rs. 75,000/- and interest has been adjusted against the fixed deposit. Thereafter, informant's son approached the bank and found that Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the informant on 23.05.2007, Rs. 32,000/- on 02.06.2007, Rs. 30,000/- on 12.06.2007, Rs. 60,000/- on 05.07.2007, Rs. 45,000/- on 18.08.2007 and Rs.
2
9,000/- on 09.07.2008. It is further alleged that the informant never took any loan from the bank and did not withdraw the money on the aforesaid dates. Petitioner was the cashier on the alleged dates of withdrawal from the account of the informant. On the basis of these allegations the instant case has been registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the anticipatory bail application has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was working as Cashier in Bank of India, Manaitand Branch and his duty was only to give cash to account holder or any third persons on proper signature of account holder. There is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the informant. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed an anticipatory bail petition bearing A.B.A. NO. 820 of 2017 but the fact about the order dated 30.01.2017 for allowing the co-accused/Manager of the bank on anticipatory bail by the lower court was not brought into the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the Chief Manager of the Bank of India, Manitand Branch has stated in the letter dated 16.08.2017 as follows:
“(i) On 01.02.2007, the opposite party no. 2 had deposited Rs. 3 lakhs in six fixed deposits vide D.B.D No. 26,794/- 26795, 26797, 26798 and 26799.
(ii) That on 23.05.2007, the O.P. No. 2 had taken a loan of Rs. 75,000/- against the D.B.D NO. 26796, 26797, 26798 and 26799 of Rs. 25,000/- each and the loan A/C NO. 47096110000344 and since the loan amount was not repaid, therefore, the O.P. No. 2 was given notice and lastly on 09.09.2015, thereafter the amount of D.B.D No. 26796,
3
26797, 26,798 and 26799 was adjusted in the Loan A/C NO. 47096110000344.
(iii) Further on 28.06.2007, the O.P. had withdrawn the fixed Deposit amount in D.B.D No. 26794 and 26795 prematurely and invested/deposited in O.D. A/C No. 503.
(iv) The said O.D. A/C No. 503 I.e is in the name of M/s S.B. Transport Agency which is being conducted/operated jointly by the son of the O.P. No. 2 namely, Chanchal Singh and by her son-in-law namely Pankaj Kumar Biswas.
(v) That all amount of Rs. 15,00/-, 32,500/-, 30,000/-, 60,000/- and 43,000/- were withdrawn by the O.P. and all fixed deposit certificates are still lying in the Bank which are subject matter of investigation.
(vi) That these all actual facts were not earlier available and as such could not be brought on the record of the earlier anticipatory bail petition being A.B.A. No. 820/2017 as such the same led to pass the earlier order dated 29.11.2017 by this Hon'ble Court.
Further, it has been submitted that in the earlier order dated 29.11.2017 passed in A.B.A. No. 820 of 2017, the I.O was directed to submit report from the handwriting expert within 20 weeks from 29.11.2017 for which the specimen signature of the petitioner is to be taken by the I.O though the same has not been done till date and the same is not possible even as the movement the petitioner would give his specimen signature and writings then he would be arrested by the police. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner is retired persons from service and now is aged
4
about more than 66 years. Further, it has been submitted that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner is fixed on 18.02.2018. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
It appears that earlier the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner bearing A.B.A. No. 820 of 2017 has already been rejected by this Court under order dated 29.11.2017, investigation is still going on, so taking all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Satyarthi/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, and 34 of the IPC.
Kishori Ram
State of Jharkhand
Smt. Mala Singh
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
