Disposed

Mampi Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 May 2024A.B.A./1362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an accountant of a company, sought anticipatory bail in an embezzlement/defalcation case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Noting her cooperation with investigation, no recovery from her, and the informant's non-cooperation, the court granted anticipatory bail on conditions including surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to surrender within four weeks and be enlarged on bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions.

Mampi Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1362 of 2023

¶2

Mampi Das …… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Anil Garg ……Opposite parties

¶6

----------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate

¶9

Order No.11/ Dated:13.05.2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Apprehending her arrest in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 306 of 2022 instituted under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

As per prosecution case, petitioner is working in his Office at the post of accountant and was involved in embezzlement of money/defalcation.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather she was working as accountant in the Garg Engineers, Ltd. Adityapur, District Seraikella. Petitioner was never engaged for outdoor work like attending banks. She was managing the internal accounts of the company. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is absolutely false and fabricated. She has neither committed any forgery or cheated any amount of the company nor has committed any breach of trust in respect of any property and no amount of money was ever entrusted to her. She was working diligently in accordance with the directions issued from the other superior officials of the company and without their approval no money was spent by the petitioner. She has no criminal antecedent and in compliance of notice under Section 41 A

¶14

Cr.p.c. she is fully co-operating in the investigation of the case and further undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and materials has been furnished by the company that she has embezzled about Rs. Thirty Lacs of the informant’s Company and converted it for her own use.

¶16

It appears that during investigation nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It further transpires from recent progress of investigation in this case that informant company has been closed down and informant is not co-operating in the investigation with I.O. of this case and is also not providing further documents as desired by the I.O. as mentioned in the para 96, 100, 106, 107, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120 and 124 of the case diary.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that petitioner is a women and was working as accountant in the informant’s company and also co-operating in the investigation as and when required by the I.O., I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged 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. at Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 306 of 2022 with the condition that she will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the

¶18

investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish her mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶20

R.K/

Mampi Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mampi Das 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

Sanjeet Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Utkarsh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhananjay Kumar Bhargava Alias Dhananjay Sharma Alias Dhananjay Kumar Bhargav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Shekhar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ganesh Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand