The High Court of Jharkhand granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged loan fraud and conspiracy under the IPC, noting the dispute appears civil in nature.
Psychological support and anticipatory bail granted for the petitioner.
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. 1611 of 2020
Pushplata @ Pushpalata Kumari
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Alok Dutta, Advocate
------
Order No.06 Dated- 28.09.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.292 of 2019 registered under sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons committed fraud with the opposite party no.2 –Branch Manager, Andhra Bank and availed loan of Rs.63.18 Lakhs by hypothecating same stocks upon hypothecation of which loan was granted to her by Vijaya Bank also. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to annexure-2 at page no.54 of the brief, that therein it has been categorically mentioned that the hypothecation of current assets made by the M/s. Shanit Enterprises of which the petitioner is the proprietress that the hypothecation of all current assets other than stock/book debts pertaining to HUL Ice Cream Barista & Ice Cream Parlour for which charge is to be ceded to Andhra Bank, Jamshedpur which indicates that the State same stocks were not hypothecated with two different banks. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to annexure-8 at page no.11 of the
supplementary affidavit that the petitioner first submitted a complaint to the Chairman and Managing Director of Andhra Bank on 29.12.2018 against the Branch Manager and being enraged at that, the Branch Manager lodged the present case even though no offence has been committed by the petitioner nor the petitioner ever defaulted in the payment of the loan in installments nor the cash credit facility ever became irregular. It is next submitted that similarly on 17th January, 2019 the petitioner has made a complaint to the Branch Manager, Tatanagar Branch, Jamshedpur, the copy of which is annexed as annexure-10 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to annexure-3 at page no. 57 of the brief, that the assets classification as on 01.02.2019 was issued by the Andhra Bank to the petitioner in respect of her said proprietary concern M/s. Shanit Enterprises dated 01.02.2019 shows that the status of four loans of the petitioner with said informant-bank were standard. It is then submitted that for the selfsame occurrence, the bank has already instituted O.A. Case No. 393 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, the copy of the summons of which has been annexed as annexure-6 at page no.7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.02.2021. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
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 petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case
No.292 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish her mobile number and a copy of her Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu/Gunjan-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the bounced cheque/fraud case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pushplata @ Pushpalata Kumari
The State of Jharkhand
Branch Manager, Andhra Bank
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
