The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner failed to demonstrate fresh grounds after previously failing to show readiness to refund the investment amount to the complainant in a cheating case.
Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 152 of 2019
Manoj Kumar …… Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand 2.Nand Kishore Kumar …… Opposite Party ----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate. -----
C.A.V.on 29.01.2019 Pronounced on: 05/02/2019
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 191/2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 473/2017, the case registered under Section 420,406,506 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on the basis of one complaint being Complaint Case No. 44 of 2017 filed by Nand Kishore Kumar, opposite party no. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, which was referred under Section 156 (3) for institution of the case alleging therein that the petitioner on auction had taken a lease of sand ghat situated in Karo river for extracting sand under Jharkhand Minor Mineral Rules, 2004 for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018, but the Mining Department subsequently cancelled the lease. It is alleged that on assurance given by the petitioner to refund the money and to give him share in profit and on the request of petitioner, opposite party no. 2/complainant has invested Rs. 10,08,000/- by transferring the money in the HDFC bank account of petitioner on different occasions. The amount was credited, detail description is given in para-3, 4, 5, 6 of the complaint. It is alleged that apart from transferring money in the HDFC account of the petitioner, opposite party no. 2 also invested Rs. 10 lakhs when the work was going on for extracting the sand, but work was stopped and when the money was not returned, the petitioner was demanded money and was given legal notice. Hence, this case.
It appears that earlier petitioner has filed ABA No. 3279 of 2018 and after hearing the parties the same was rejected on merit 04.01.2019 and this is the third attempt made by the petitioner.
The instant application was heard on 25.01.2019 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to take instruction as to whether petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 20 lacs to O.P.No.2 and out of which petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs, which shall be subject to the result of the case and the matter was directed to be listed today.
Today when the case is called out, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not in a position to pay Rs.
20 lacs to O.P.No.2 although he is ready to pay Rs.10 lacs in respect of the transaction against which some documents have been produced.
Be that as it may, no fresh ground is made out in the present bail application. Hence, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail application.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
( Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Raman /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in PC cases alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Whether the failure to pay the directed amount of Rs. 20 lacs precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj Kumar
State of Jharkhand
Nand Kishore Kumar
Anant Bijay Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
