Petitioner challenged bail conditions in a fraud case involving alleged misappropriation of funds for flat purchases. Court recorded large deposit and confirmed provisional bail without judicial review of facts.
Provisional bail to the petitioner is confirmed.
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
B. A. No. 1068 of 2019
Shamsher Alam … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Shakeel Khan … … Opp. Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. P. S. Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, Advocate ---
11/16.12.2019 Heard Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the State and Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
Petitioner has been made accused in connection with C/1 Case No. 2527 of 2017.
It has been alleged that Rs. 25,00,000/- has been taken from the complainant by the accused towards purchase of two flats. Neither the construction work was started nor the money was returned. In the anticipation that there was a possibility of an amicable settlement, the petitioner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 13.03.2019. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.07.2019 the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the court below which was deposited by the petitioner. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.11.2019 the petitioner was further directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted at Bar a photocopy of the draft being Bank Draft No. 303152 while stating that the said amount has also been deposited before the learned court below. Learned counsel further submits that according to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- has been deposited.
Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has disputed the said fact and has stated that merely an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- has been deposited which fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to supplementary affidavit by stating that an amount Rs. 4,00,000/- has
-2-
been deposited through cheque. There appears to be some dispute between the parties with respect to the amount which has been received by the complainant.
Since the petitioner has deposited a substantial amount before the learned trial court as indicated above, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by this Court on 13.03.2019 is, hereby, confirmed.
This application stands disposed of.
Let a photocopy of the draft be kept on the record.
It goes without saying that the opposite party no. 2 is at liberty to withdraw the amount by making necessary application before the learned trial court.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
Shamsher Alam
The State of Jharkhand
Md. Shakeel Khan
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
