The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to multiple petitioners involved in bank fraud and corruption charges. Bail was conditional upon the deposit of specific outstanding loan amounts by the due date.
Anticipatory bail granted subject to proof of deposit of specified pending amounts in the accounts of relevant petitioners.
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. 1966 of 2016
With A.B. A. No. 2014 of 2017
Nisar Ansari … Petitioner
Versus … The State of Jharkhand through CBI Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : M/s. Nilesh Kumar, Avishek Prasad, Advs. For the CBI : Mrs. Neetu Sinha, Adv. For the Bank : Mr. Pratiush Kumar, Adv.
28 / 09.01.19 Heard the parties.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. 01 (S ) /2015-EOW-R registered under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 13 (2 ), 13 (1), (c ) (d) of the P.C. Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drawing attention of the court submits that vide order dated 31.10.2018, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 4, have been disposed of. It is further submitted that the Petitioner no. 3 - Liyakat Hussain has deposited Rs. 5,50355.51/and Rs. 1,09,644.49/- yet to be deposited.
Petitioner no. 5 namely Arjun Thakur has deposited only Rs.
1,40,000/- and 4,60,000/- is yet to be deposited.
Petitioner no. 6 namely Niyamat Hussain has deposited Rs. 3,10,000/- and Rs. 3, 40, 000/- yet to be deposited. Petitioner no. 7 namely Murshid Ahamad has deposited Rs. 4,60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- is yet to be deposited.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said petitioner nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 will deposit remaining amount by 10.04.2019 and drawing attention of the court to page 14 of the counter affidavit filed on 18.08.2017 on behalf of opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 8 is alleged to have got the loan amount dishonestly credited into his own account with regard to the loan granted to the petitioner no. 7 and petitioner no. 8 will also ensure that the remaining Rs. 40,000/- of Murshid Ahmadpetitioner no. 7 is deposited by 10.04.2019. So far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, learned counsel submits that petitioner no. 1 -Abdur Raheem Ansari is alleged to have withdrawn the entire loan amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- and petitioner no. 1 is ready and willing to ensure that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- is also deposited in respect of the loan advance to Gulam Rasul till 10.04.2019. It is further submitted that Final Form has already been submitted in this case and the petitioners co-operated during investigation of the case, hence, CBI never felt the necessity to apprehend any of the petitioners during investigation, hence, it is submitted the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned counsel for the CBI and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 – Punjab National Bank submits that if the petitioner either deposit or ensure deposit the remaining amount before being given the privilege of anticipatory bail, they do not have any serious objection to the prayer of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner of A.B. A. No. 2014 of 2016 submits that the petitioner- Nisar Ansari of this case is ready and willing to deposit to Rs. 7,00,000/- in total. Drawing attention of this court to counter affidavit dated 19.09.2018 at page 3, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the said Rs.
7,00,000/-, the petitioner of this case has already deposited Rs. 4,00,000/- and the petitioner undertakes to deposit balance total of Rs. 3,00,000/- by 10.04.2019.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in A.B. A. No. 1966 of 2016 and the sole petitioner of A.B. A. No. 2014 of 2017. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within 10.04.2019 from the date of this order, the petitioner no. 1 namely Abdur Raheem Ansari showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/-, petitioner no. 3- Liyakat Hussain showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 1,09,644.49/-, Petitioner no. 5 – Arjun Thakur showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 4,60,000/-, petitioner no. 6- Niyamat Hussain showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 3,40,000/-, petitioner no. 7- Murshid Ahamad and petitioner no. 8 Ghulam Rabbani showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 40,000/- for both petitioner no. 7 and 8, in the account of petitioner no. 7- Murshid Ahmad, (all of ABA No. 1966 of 2016) and petitioner- Nesar Ansari (of ABA No. 2014 of 2017) on showing the proof of deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be released on bail on and furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVI,-cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with R.C. 01 (S ) /2015-EOW-R subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. It is made clear that on the failure of the petitioners’ to show the proof of the deposit of the said amount by 10.04.2019 in the court, the Additional Judicial Commissioner, XVI,-cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi is directed to take coercive steps for their apprehension for facing the trial.
These anticipatory bail applications are disposed of accordingly.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners facing proceedings under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act subject to deposit of pending loan a
Whether conditions precedent regarding the deposit of specified amounts by the petitioners can be enforced before releasing them on bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Abdur Raheem Ansari
Md. Manjoor @ Manjoor
Liyakat Hussain
Abdul Barik
Arjun Thakur
Niyamat Hussain
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
