The High Court of Jharkhand considered applications for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged misappropriation of Rs. 43 lakhs by forgery. The court refused bail, deeming custodial interrogation necessary due to the serious charges.
Prayer for anticipatory bail was 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. 4076 of 2019
Anshu Kumar Singh @ Ansu Kumar Singh
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
With
A.B. A. No. 6675 of 2019
Ravindra Kullu … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv. ( In ABA no. 4076 of 2019) Mr. K.S. Nanda, Adv. ( In ABA no. 6675 of 2019) For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the Opposite Party no. 2 : Mr. A. K. Ganjhu, Adv.
06 / 07.11.19 Heard the parties. The informant-opposite party no. 2 is present in person in the court today.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Basia P.S. Case No. 26 of 2019 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- Anshu Kumar Singh @ Ansu Kumar Singh of ABA No. 4076 of 2019 was working as Block Programme Officer and the petitioner- Ravindra Kullu of ABA No. 6675 of 2019 was working as Accountant-cum- computer Operator at Block Resources Centre on contractual appointment and the allegations against the petitioners is that they by adopting fraudulent means cheated and duped Rs. 43,00,000/- by opening an account of Block Resource Centre bearing No.0610010331449 of United Bank of India, Nawatoli Branch. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the petitioners have not committed any
illegality. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the informant herself had gone to the United Bank of India, Nawatoli Branch for opening the said account and the informant has also issued letters for depositing the rest amount and the informant pressurized the petitioner to work as per her wish and when the petitioner denied the same, the informant manufactured a false story, hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submit that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that in furtherance of their common intention, by forging the signature of the informant; they have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 43,00,000/- by cheating, hence, keeping in view the huge government money misappropriated, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during investigation of the case for recovery of the misappropriated amount, hence the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners of misappropriating Rs. 43,00,000/- by forging the signature of the informant by way of cheating as well as the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners facing charges of misappropriation via forgery under sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420, 34 IPC.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the serious allegations of forgery and misappropriation of government funds.
Whether the allegations are false or warrant the court's concerns on misappropriation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anshu Kumar Singh @ Ansu Kumar Singh
Ravindra Kullu
The State of Jharkhand
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
