Allowed

Indra Bhushan Prasad Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2019A.B.A./932/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered under the Indian Penal Code alleging misappropriation of funds. The court held it to be a fit case for bail, conditional on cooperation with the investigation and appearance before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned on visiting theJM Ranchi within four weeks, furnishing a bond, cooperation with investigation, appearance before IO, and disclosure of mobile numbers and Aadhar.

Indra Bhushan Prasad Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 932 of 2018

¶2

Indra Bhushan 2. Kumari Bibha Sinha … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sheo Narayan Ojha … Opposite Parties ------

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. I. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. B.N. Ojha, Advocate ------

¶5

Order No.11 Dated- 18.06.2019

¶6

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.417 of 2015 (G.R. No. 7311 of 2015) registered under sections 406/407/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶7

Heard the parties.

¶8

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.2 who is the wife of the petitioner no.1 was a partner of M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction and the petitioner no.1 also used to work for the said partnership firm unofficially and both the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have misappropriated the fund of M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners are all false and the petitioner no.1 is the employee of Accountant General Office and he has nothing to do with the said M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction. The petitioner no.2 though was the partner of M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction but has resigned in the year 2013 and she has nothing to do with the said M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction. It is further submitted that there is no document in the record that the petitioners have received any money from the account of the said M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction and this FIR has been lodged much after the resignation of petitioner no.2 from

¶9

the said partnership firm- M/s Maa Bhagwati Construction. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute and there is no allegation of any dishonest intention of the petitioners at the time of alleged entrustment of any money to them. It is, further, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that since all the relevant document are in possession of the petitioners at present so he does not have any document to show that the petitioners has misappropriated any money.

¶12

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on 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 J.M. Ranchi, in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.417 of 2015 (G.R. No. 7311 of 2015) with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

¶13

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶14

Sonu/Gunjan-

Indra Bhushan Prasad Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Bhushan Prasad Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tiran Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Jaykumar Pathare Alias Sunil Pathare Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsuddin Sai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Bansal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanchita Bhakat Vs the State of Jharkhand