Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2022B.A./5271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to a petitioner accused of offences under sections 403, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged misappropriation of government funds. The High Court ordered release upon furnishing a bond because the informant failed to conclusively prove the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraudulent withdrawals despite the FIR allegations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Pradeep Kumar Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 5271 of 2022

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Nayak @ Pradeep Nayak …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party

¶6

----------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

-----

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shaurya,

¶10

Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P.

¶11

Order No.09/ Dated:10.08.2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, registered for the offence under Section 403, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned J.M., 1^st Class, Hazaribag.

¶14

As per F.I.R. allegation is that informant Santosh Kumar Singh is a Bank Manager of Union Bank of India, Chattibariyatu Branch, Keredari Hazaribag. It is alleged that due to inadvertence Government account no. 4582020101212495 operating in the name of “Gram Evam Jal Swachhta Samiti” was linked with the adhar card no. of the present petitioner having different bank account in the same bank branch. It is further alleged that taking advantage of said mistake petitioner has withdrawn about Rs. 4.79 lakh on different dates in between 17.04.2020 to 23.06.2020 from the said government account and misappropriated the same.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely

¶16

implicated in this case by the Bank officials in order to shift their own liability. It is further submitted that petitioner has never withdrawn any money from the account of “Gram Evam Jal Swachhta Samiti” and there is no iota of evidence showing any withdrawal of money from the said account. The petitioner is languishing in Judicial custody since 30.12.2021 without rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner showing his involvement in the present case, hence he does not deserve bail.

¶18

In the course of hearing of this bail matter the informant was called for to submit the counter affidavit regarding the opening date of accounts of the petitioner as well as government account and its date of link with the adhar card and also statement of the accounts showing the withdrawal transaction by the petitioner from the Government account. It appears that the account of present petitioner was opened on 07.02.2020 and on the same day it was linked with adhar. It is also stated in the counter affidavit of the informant that account of “Gram Evam Jal Swachhta Samiti” was opened in the year 2016 which was linked with adhar of the present petitioner on 07.10.2016 in spite of fact that government account is not required to be linked by the adhar as its admitted by the counsel for the informant.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled with materials available against petitioner, I am inclined to release the petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of

¶20

learned J.M., 1^st Class, Hazaribag in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021 subject to the conditions:-

¶21

Petitioner shall remain physically present on each and every date till the conclusion of the trial of this case unless prevented from sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶22

Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

In case of violation of the aforesaid condition the bail of the petitioner shall be cancelled and shall be taken into custody by the learned trial court itself.

¶24

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶25

R.K.

Pradeep Kumar Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Nayak 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

Harendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dayanand Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Ashirullah Ansari Alias Maulana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaushal Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mansoor Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangam Lohra Vs State of Jharkhand