Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 4065 of 2023

¶3

Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary 2. Sanjay Kumar ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raj Kumar ….. Opp. Parties With A.B.A. No. 3799 of 2023 1. Sanjay Kumar 2.Vijay Kumar ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raj Kumar ….. Opp. Parties --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap,Advocate. [In both cases] For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)-III [In A.B.A. No. 4065/2023] : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. [In A.B.A. No. 3799/2023] For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate. [In both cases] ---------

¶4

Order No. 7/Dated:- 06^th May, 2024

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Apprehendingtheir arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 561 of 2021 registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of the I.P.C., the petitioners have moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per protest-cum-complaint, the prosecution story is that the accused no. 1 and 2 of A.B.A. No. 4065 of 2023 are bank officials of Bank of India, Chowka, Branch and accused no 1 and 2 of A.B.A. 3799 of 2023 are own brothers of the complainant who have conspired together in connivance of bank officials and illegally withdraw a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs from the account of the parents of the complainant by transferring the amount firstly from the mother’s account to the father

¶8

P a g e 1 | 3

¶9

account and also by opening new account in the name of the father for the purpose of family pension in the same Bank and thereafter, the withdrawal of huge amount without any reasonable urgency, depriving the share of complainant in the said amounts. Initially, on the basis of complaint, FIR was registered, but after completion of investigation, the police submitted final form against the accused persons and did not send up them for trial. Therefore, complaint-cum-protest was filed by the informant/complainant and after inquiry, the learned Magistrate of 1^st Class Chandil took cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B of the I.P.C. and issued summons against the petitioners for their appearance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that no case has been made out as against the petitioners on the basis of protestcum-complaint petition, in the factual background of the present case. There are no allegation about preparation of any false document, in order to claim illegal benefit by withdrawal of money. There is no whisper at all that the money was withdrawn without any necessity or by counterfeiting the signature of the account holder rather petitioners of A.B.A. No. 3799 of 2023 happens to be own brother of the complainant, who were looking after their mother and father and due to their illness have spent huge amount of money. The real fact is that the complainant/informant was a known criminal and was involved in several criminal cases and some property of the father was also attached in relation to criminal case against the informant. Therefore, father has expelled the informant/complainant from claiming any right in his property and issued a declaration. It is further submitted that the petitioners have fully co-operated during investigation of the case and they undertake to co-operate in the trial and abide all terms and conditions, as may be imposed by this Court in case of granting anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

P a g e 2 | 3

¶11

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant/O.P. No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that they have connived with each other and have illegally withdrawn huge amount of money from the account of the father of the complainant without his consent and knowledge depriving him from the share of money without any reasonable cause. Therefore, petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court within four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chandil, Seraikela Kharsawan in connection with Complaint Case No. 561 of 2021 with the condition that they will cooperate with the trial of the case and not indulge in maneuvering or tampering with prosecution evidence and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶14

Simran-Amar/

¶15

P a g e 3 | 3

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Kumar Alias Pintu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Sahnoor Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dego Saw Alias Khago Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Alias Mukesh Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Asgar Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajesh Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand