This court rejected the bail application of the petitioner accused in a misappropriation case, noting insufficient willingness to deposit the alleged misappropriated amount unlike a co-accused who had agreed to return funds.
Bail application rejected on the grounds that the petitioner was unwilling to deposit the alleged misappropriated amount.
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. 11498 of 2021
Rajkumar Goswami ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ---
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY Through Video Conferencing
| For the Petitioner For the State For the Informant Order No. 03 |
--- : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate --- Dated 24thNovember, 2021 |
|---|
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 508 of 2020, pending before the Court of learned CJM, Deoghar.
The informant had entered into an agreement for sale of land with Suraj Kumar Giri. In spite of the informant’s paying a huge amount neither the land brokers nor Suraj Kumar Giri had transferred the land to the informant. The amount which was taken was also not returned. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is said to have taken an amount of Rs. 29,32,000/from the informant.
It has been submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the owners of the land who had given Power of Attorney to Suraj Kumar Giri, but subsequently the said Power of Attorney was revoked. Learned counsel submits that there is no document which would indicate the petitioner having taken such a huge amount from the informant. It has also been stated that co-accused Suraj Kumar Giri has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 8117 of 2021.
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that the bank transactions reveal that a huge amount was transferred in the account of the petitioner. He has further submitted that money receipts had also been given by the petitioner.
On 20.11.2021, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to taken instruction as to whether the petitioner is willing to deposit the misappropriated amount or not. No affirmative answer has come from
the side of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has sought to argue the case on merits.
On consideration of the fact there are proofs which indicate that the petitioner had taken a huge amount from the informant and the fact that the case of Suraj Kumar Giri who has been granted bail by this Court is on a different footing as he had agreed to return back the defalcated amount of Rs. 6, 30,000/-, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.)
MK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is an accused in a criminal case for alleged misappropriation of funds.
Rajkumar Goswami
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
