Allowed

Sanatan Lohar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 May 2024A.B.A./446/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three LAMPS office-bearers sought anticipatory bail in a case of alleged embezzlement of Rs.15,62,920 by illegal sale of paddy. The court granted anticipatory bail upon surrender within four weeks, subject to bail bonds, sureties and co-operation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on surrender/arrest, bail bond Rs.25,000 each with two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions and co-operation with investigation.

Sanatan Lohar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.27 of 2024

¶2

------
Naresh Munda .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No.873 of 2024
------
Somnath Birua .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No.446 of 2024
------
Sanatan Lohar .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party

¶3

------

¶4

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate [In A.B.A. No.27/24] Mr. S.P. Roy, Adv. [In A.B.A. Nos.446 & 873 /24] For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P [In A.B.A. No.27/24] Mr. Priya Shrestha, S.P.P. [In A.B.A. No.446/24] Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P. [In A.B.A. No.873/24] ------

¶6

Order No.05 Dated- 07.05.2024

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Manjhari P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 instituted under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

The anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR have been heard together.

¶10

As per FIR, allegation is that petitioners being Jan Sewak, President and Secretary in the Manjhari LAMPS have misappropriated the government money of Rs.15,62,920/- by illegally selling of 726.40 quintals of paddy crops.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that initially petitioners were restrained to supply the paddy crops due to difficulties in lifting the paddy from the LAMPS due to non-deposition of fortified rice (C.M.R) in advance by the rice mills. In spite of several requests to the concerned authority, permission was not accorded to the petitioners to supply the paddy crops to the concerned mills due to which the paddy crops was destroyed. The certificate case is also pending against the petitioners for recovery of the misappropriated amount. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of embezzling huge amount of government money. Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation against petitioners coupled with materials available on record, I am inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below within four weeks from today and in the event of their 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 SDJM, Sadar West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Manjhari P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023 with the condition that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their 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.

¶14

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶15

Pappu/

Sanatan Lohar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanatan Lohar 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

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

Naresh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khanna Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand