Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Apr 2024A.B.A./591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust over Rs.50 lakhs taken by way of two friendly-loan agreements. The court held that non-repayment of loan under agreements is essentially a civil dispute, and granted anticipatory bail subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: surrender within three weeks; bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two like sureties before CJM, Dhanbad, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 591 of 2024

¶2

Sanjeev Kumar … Petitioner

¶3

-Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the Informant : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. K. Hari, Advocate

¶6

02/02.04.2024 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.224 of 2023, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 506, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶8

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and informant are friends and friendly loan was provided to the petitioner by two agreements to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs each. He submits that the first agreement is dated 19.10.2022, wherein, it has been disclosed that within one year the said amount will be refunded w.e.f. 19.10.2022, the date of signing of the said agreement. He further submits that by way of another agreement dated 20.01.2023, another amount of Rs.25 Lakhs was given in which condition was made that within 18 months the said amount of Rs.25 Lakhs of the present agreement and earlier amount shall be returned. He also submits that however the present case

¶9

-1- A.B.A. No. 591 of 2024

¶10

has been lodged on 06.09.2023, whereas, 18 months' period was going to be expired in June, 2024. He further submits that the sum of Rs.4 Lakhs was already returned to the informant and due to some financial problem, remaining amount has not been returned as yet. He submits that however efforts are being made to return the remaining amount.

¶11

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioner has vacated the shop without informing the informant.

¶12

Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer on the ground that the sum of Rs.50 Lakhs was taken by the petitioner and only Rs.4 Lakhs was returned to the informant. She further submits that the shop where the petitioner was doing the business of plywood, was vacated without informing the informant. She also submits that the informant has gone to the house of the present petitioner and has demanded the amount, however, the amount was not returned rather the informant was threatened. She submits that thereafter the present case has been lodged.

¶13

There are two agreements between the parties of friendly loan of total Rs.50 Lakhs. Thus, it is a clear case of taking money arising out of the agreement and if money is not being returned, remedy is elsewhere by way of filing an appropriate suit, whereas, the present FIR has been lodged.

¶14

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court

¶15

-2- A.B.A. No. 591 of 2024

¶16

within three weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 224 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶18

Ajay/

¶19

-3- A.B.A. No. 591 of 2024

Sanjeev Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar 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

Jitendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Singh Alias Vijay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gourango Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand