Allowed

Man Mohan Varma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Sept 2021A.B.A./5491/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with a bank case alleging failure to transfer shares and unpaid consideration. Both sides submitted; the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions of cooperation and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on surrender/arrest within six weeks on bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, conditioned upon cooperation with investigation and appearance before Investigating Off

Man Mohan Varma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5491 of 2021

¶2

Man Mohan Varma @ Man Mohan Verma

¶3

Saroj Varma @ Saroj Verma … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶5

For the Petitioners	: Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Advocate : Mr. Siddhartha, Advocate
	: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Stuti Sinha, Advocate
	: Ms. Aparajita Mallick, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Aman, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. P.S.A. Swaroop Pati, G.A.-II
For the Informant	: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate ------

¶6

Order No.04 Dated- 20.09.2021

¶7

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

¶8

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No. 338 of 2019 instituted under Sections 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioners have received agreed amount of Rs.17.45 crores to transfer their company in the name of M/s Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Pvt. Ltd but they did not transfer the entire original share certificate of the said company to the informant and his brother namely Dinesh Pradhan and are not signing the relevant form in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. It is next submitted that in fact the petitioners only received Rs.4.77 crores and the rest amount are not being paid by the informant. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also lodged vide Bank More P.S. Case No.354 of 2019 involved in offences punishable under Sections 406, 420/34 of Indian Penal Code against the informant and his brother Dinesh Pradhan as the informant and his brother Dinesh Pradhan without paying the entire consideration amount has fraudulently got the

¶10

shares transferred in their names in connivance with the Company Secretary-Ritu Ritolia. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to transfer the entire original share certificates to the informant and his brother Dinesh Pradhan as per the agreed terms of the agreement between them on receiving the entire sum of Rs.17.45 crores excluding Rs.4.77 crores which has already been received by the petitioners and also excluding the agreed liability of the said company from the said amount. It is then 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.

¶11

Learned counsel for G.A.-II and the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the informant do not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶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 six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Dhanbad, in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No. 338 of 2019 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-

Man Mohan Varma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Mohan Varma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarnath Jaiswal Alias Amar Nath Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anand Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nupur Chhawi Alias Nupur Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Pradhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hiralal Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand