Namita Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Namita Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: petitioner to be enlarged on arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.248 of 2023, subject to Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner Namita Dey apprehending arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.248 of 2023 registered under Sections 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, the court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from the date of the order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).

Key takeaways

The bail is with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.248 of 2023.ratio¶17
The grant of anticipatory bail is subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail - Granted. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Rajesh Shankar, J.), A.B.A. No.9404 of 2023, order dated 05.09.2024: petitioner Namita Dey, apprehending arrest in Dhanbad P.S. Case No.248 of 2023 under Sections 406/419/420 IPC arising out of an alleged flat-sale transaction (agreed price Rs.37 lakhs; alleged total payment Rs.35,67,000/- including Rs.29,67,000/- deposited to petitioner's LIC Housing Finance loan account), is enlarged on anticipatory bail - to surrender/be arrested within three weeks and furnish bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each before learned CJM, Dhanbad, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions. Petitioner alleged false implication at the instance of the informant's husband, a police officer connected with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.20 of 2022 against her family, and pointed to her own complaint C.P. Case No.8211 of 2023 and a pending SSP Dhanbad inquiry; she is a widow employed with Indian Railways with no criminal antecedent (as submitted).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.9404 of 2023

Namita Dey .......... Petitioner. -Versus1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Prabha Rani 3. Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Bank More, Dhanbad. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate ----- Order No.11 Date: 05.09.2024

The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.248 of 2023 registered under Sections 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. As per the allegation, the informant-Prabha Rani wife of Ashok Kumar Yadav met the petitioner in the month of August, 2022, who intended to sale out her Flat No. 201, 2^nd Floor, Arya Enclave Apartment situated at Bishunpur (Jharudih), Dhanbad. The informant agreed to purchase the said flat at a fixed price of Rs.37 Lakhs. An agreement was also executed for the said purpose pursuant to which the informant gave Rs.51,000/- as earnest money on 12.08.2022 through cheque no.922357. Thereafter, she made payment of Rs.4,30,000/- through various cheques and Rs.1,19,000/- in cash to the petitioner. Hence, she paid Rs.6,00,000/- in total to the petitioner and

received money receipts for the said transactions. After sometime, the petitioner disclosed to the informant that the said flat was under mortgage of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. against loan amount of Rs.29,67,000/- and after repeated request of the petitioner, the informant agreed to clear the loan amount of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Thereafter, the informant borrowed loan of Rs.25 lakhs from State Bank of India, Bank More, Dhanbad as well as contributed rest of the amount from his own end and deposited Rs.29,67,000/through Demand Draft No.666484 dated 19.01.2023 in loan A/C No. 211700007423 of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and got the deed of the said flat released. The informant thus paid total amount of Rs.35,67,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner prepared a sale deed putting her signature and thumb impression as well as affixing her photographs, however, later on started evading to register the same. Due to the petitioner’s said attitude the informant is unable to deposit the sale deed in SBI, Bank More, Dhanbad despite repeated instructions given by the said bank to deposit the sale deed, which may lead to initiation of process of recovery of loan amount. Thereafter, the informant sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 25.04.2023, but she refused to execute the sale deed stating that the price of the said flat had been increased to Rs.45 lakhs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

-2- A.B.A. No.9404 of 2023

informant’s husband-Ashok Kumar Yadav is a police officer who was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Dhanbad Mahila P.S. at the time of filing of the present F.I.R. In fact, the petitioner has been implicated in this case at the instance of informant’s husband. In the month of March, 2022, a case being Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.20 of 2022 was registered under Sections 366/342/323/354/420/ 406/379/120B/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner’s daughter namely Sonali Mitra @ Sonai, Amit Mitra (son-in-law of the petitioner), Abhijit Mitra @ Mangal Mitra and Subroto Banerjee. Ashok Kumar Yadav was appointed as investigating officer of the said case. Despite knowing that entire allegation made in the said case was false, he prolonged the investigation with a view to extract money from the petitioner. He also forcibly took signature of the petitioner on several blank papers putting threat to arrest her daughter and son-in-law. The said blank papers were subsequently used by him in fabricating money receipts, agreement paper, unregistered sale deed etc.

It is also submitted that though two cheques amounting to Rs.4 lakhs were given to the petitioner by the informant’s husband, however, when she got those cheques encashed, Ashok Kumar Yadav collected the said amount in cash. The petitioner kept mum for certain period, however, when the situation went out of control, she filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad being C.P.

-3- A.B.A. No.9404 of 2023

Case No.8211 of 2023 against Ashok Kumar Yadav and the informant (his wife) on 5^th June, 2023. Thereafter, the informant filed the present case in retaliation of the said complaint case instituted by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner’s daughter also made a complaint against Ashok Kumar Yadav before Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad on 13^th May, 2023 and inquiry in that matter is still pending. In fact, the petitioner had never agreed to sell the flat in question to the informant and her husband-Ashok Kumar Yadav. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a widow and is an employee Indian Railways having no criminal antecedent. Hence, she may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant and her husband to sell the flat in question for consideration of Rs.37 lakhs. The informant paid Rs.4.81 lakhs through cheques and Rs.1.19 lakhs in cash to the petitioner. In addition to that, the informant also transferred Rs.29,67,000/to the loan account of the petitioner existing in LIC Housing Finance Ltd. in which sale deed of the flat in question was put as equitable mortgaged. Thus, the informant paid an amount of Rs.35,67,000/ in total to the petitioner, however, she neither repaid the said amount to the informant nor executed the sale deed. Hence, she may not be given the privilege of

-4- A.B.A. No.9404 of 2023

anticipatory bail.

A.P.P. also opposes the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I am inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within three weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No.248 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Vikas/

-5-

A.B.A. No.9404 of 2023