High Court at Ranchi granted bail to Harendra Singh, an accused under Sections 420 and 406 IPC for alleged cheque dishonour in a land sale, directing release upon furnishing sureties and adhering to standard custody conditions.
Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing bond and sureties.
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.4373 of 2022
Harendra Singh … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Anuj Sharma … Opposite Parties
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Seema Kumari Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Adv.
Order No.06 Dated- 08.08.2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Complaint Case No. 3436 of 2018 registered under sections 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
As per F.I.R. the allegation is that petitioner has contracted with the informant in connection with sale of land and received Rs.3.80 lakhs from the complainant, when the sale deed was not executed then four cheques had been issued by petitioner in favour of complainant which were dishonored due to close of the bank account.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all as alleged in complaint petition. It is further submitted that earlier the anticipatory bail of the present petitioner was granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with condition to pay Rs.3.80 lakhs to the complainant without prejudice of his defence but due to lockdown arising out of Covid-19 pandemic, petitioner was unable to arrange money for making payment to the complainant, hence, petitioner surrendered before the learned trial court on 23.02.2022 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody. It is further submitted that petitioner has not cheated the complainant even if the contents of complainant’s case may be assumed to be true, but it is a case of N.I. Act for which no complaint has been instituted by complainant. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial and shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them. Hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. being assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he has committed cheating Rs.3.8 lakhs of the complainant in false pretext of sale of land. It is further submitted that during the hearing of the anticipatory bail, petitioner has taken false plea and undertaking to deposit the said amount taken by him to the complainant but deliberately he failed to deposit the same in order to dupe again the complainant which shows his dishonest intention. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioner coupled with materials available on record and period of custody of the petitioner, I am inclined to release the above named petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.1st Class, Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No. 3436 of 2018 with condition that petitioner shall appear physically on each and every date during the trial of case till its conclusion unless his physical appearance is dispensed from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and with further condition that petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses or gain over them.
In case of violation of the aforesaid conditions of the bail, the trial court shall at liberty to cancel the bail of petitioner and take into custody of the petitioner for the purpose of trial.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 420 and 406 IPC who is in judicial custody.
Harendra Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Smt. Anuj Sharma
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
