Surendra Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 1123 of 2024

Sakindra Lohra, Aged about 50 years, Son of Bandhu Lohra, Resident of VillageRampur, P.O.- Bari, P.S.-Chandwa, District- Latehar

¶4

..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Barun Kumar, Branch Manager, Sasung, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Son of Shri Vishwmohan Kumar, Resident of Kadamkuan, Park Road, Patna, AnchalSadar, Patna, Bihar-800003 ..... Opposite Parties

¶8

..... Opposite Parties

¶9

With

¶10

A.B.A. No. 802 of 2024

¶11

Surendra Lohra, Aged about 40 years, Son of Ganesh Lohra, Resident of VillageRampur, P.O.- Bari, P.S.-Chandwa, District- Latehar

¶12

..… Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

¶15

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶17

--------For the Petitioners : Ms. Rakhi Rani, Advocate (in both cases) For the O.P. No.2-JRGB : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate (in ABA 1123/2024) Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC (Mines) III (in ABA 802/2024) Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, AC to SC (Mines)-III ---------

¶18

11/ Dated: 01.10.2024

¶19

Both these anticipatory bail applications arise out from same FIR as such, they are being heard together and dispose of by this common order.

¶20

Both these petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 182 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Latehar.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and without their knowledge their respective bank account has been used for keeping money and thereafter withdrawal from the said account. These petitioners were not aware about the deposit and thereafter transfer of money from their respective account as such, there was no occasion for them to get suspicious. She further pointed out that, in the present case the then, Branch Manager, namely, Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Kumar has also been made an accused and he was the kingpin in siphoning of the said amount. She concluded her argument by making submission that both the petitioners are

¶22

¶23

having clean antecedent and they are ready to join investigation as and when required.

¶24

Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank (in ABA No. 1123 of 2024) appeared before this Court and both of them apprised this Court that these petitioners also played an active role in commission of crime as huge amount to the tune of Rs. 91,13,200/- was transferred in the account of these petitioners as well as other coaccused persons and thereafter, on different occasions the amount was withdrawn and withdrawal also indicate the involvement of these petitioners and for that purpose custodial interrogation is required.

¶25

After going through the material available on record and hearing learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that these cases pertain to transfer of Rs.91,13,200/- of innocent persons to the account of these petitioners as well as other co-accused persons and stated to be withdrawn.

¶26

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2-Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank (in A.B.A. No. 1123 of 2024) submitted that as far as petitioner-Sakindra Lohra is concerned, Rs.29,94,000/- credited to his account and it was withdrawn through series of ATM transactions and also transferred through UPI and for both type of transactions petitioners’s participation is there. Learned prosecutor pointed out, that prayer of anticipatory bail of one of the account holder in whose account money was transferred, has already been declined by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No. 363 of 2024 vide order dated 13.03.2024.

¶27

Considering the fact that huge amount has been transferred to account of these two petitioners and other co-accused persons and present matter has to be unfolded further regarding the connivance of these petitioners along with the then Manager, Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Kumar and other persons.

¶28

In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to these petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail, are hereby, rejected.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

Pramanik/

¶31

Surendra Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Saran Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinod Kumar Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sabita Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhansd

Karan Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand