Disposed

Purnima Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Oct 2024Cr.M.P./816/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow sought modification of her deceased husband's anticipatory bail orders to refund Rs. 2,32,000 deposited before the Trial Court, the complainant never having collected it and the complaint having been disposed on his death. The Court held the anticipatory bail ended with disposal of the complaint and directed the widow to approach the Trial Court, disposing of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Purnima Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 816 of 2023

¶2

Purnima Verma, W/o:- Late Sunil Verma, aged about 51 years, R/O:- E/332, A-Block, Sonari, P.O and P.S:- Sonari, Town:- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). ..… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Jarnail Singh, S/o: - Late Mela Singh, R/o:- Station Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.:- Jugsalai, Town: - Jamshedpur, Distt:- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). .....Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, APP

¶9

15/ 18^th October, 2024

¶10

1. The instant Cr.M.P. has been filed for modification in the order dated 04.09.2017 and 08.05.2018 passed in A.B.A No.657 of 2016, to the extent that the deposited amount i.e. Rs 2,32,000/- as condition for anticipatory bail, may be refunded.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is widow of deceased Sunil Verma who has been admitted to anticipatory bail in A.B.A No.657 of 2016. He drew attention of this Court towards the order dated 10.08.2017 wherein this Court directed the deceased Sunil Verma to deposit a bank draft, in favour of O.P. No.2, namely, Jarnail Singh, of Rs. 1 lac before the learned Trial Court and granted provisional anticipatory bail.

¶12

3. It has been pointed out that deceased Sunil Verma deposited two Demand Drafts in favour of O.P. No.2 for amount of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 70,000/and further in pursuant to the provisional bail granted, one Demand Draft of Rs. 1,32,000/- was also deposited by the deceased in the name of O.P. No.2, namely, Jarnail Singh on 17.03.2018 before the learned Trial Court, but the O.P. No.2 Jarnail Singh in spite of issuance of notice, did not turn up before the learned Trial Court for receiving the above stated Demand Drafts/amounts. Deceased Sunil Verma deposited total sum of Rs. 2,32,000 by way of Demand Drafts before the Trial Court and on the basis of deposit of aforesaid amount as directed by this Court, his provisional anticipatory

¶13

¶14

bail was got confirmed on 08.05.2018.

¶15

4. It has been brought to notice of this Court that Sunil Verma deceased husband of petitioner who had been admitted to anticipatory bail, died on 04.05.2022 and the pending proceeding of C/1 Case No. 3391 of 2014 against the deceased Sunil Verma was stopped and disposed of on 27.09.2022 by the Court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur. It is urged that even after disposal of above said complaint case by the learned Trial Court, the O.P. No.2 did not receive the Demand Drafts/amount of Rs. 2,32,000/- which has been deposited before learned Court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur.

¶16

5. Leaned A.P.P. for the State urged that, this application is not maintainable as the petitioner is the wife of deceased Sunil Verma who was accused in complaint case being C/1 Case No. 3391 of 2014 and was admitted to anticipatory bail on the condition of deposit of amount in installments to the tune of Rs. 2,32,000 before the learned Trial Court. It is also submitted that this petitioner was not a party, in the anticipatory bail application in which direction for deposit of aforesaid amount was passed and as such, the instant application is not maintainable as petitioner being the widow of deceased accused cannot claim the aforesaid amount which is/was the basis of grant of anticipatory bail to her deceased accused (husband).

¶17

6. Heard the parties and perused the records.

¶18

7. From perusal of record, it transpires that notice was issued to O.P. No.2 Jarnail Singh in the present proceeding and same was received by O.P. No.2 personally, but he chose not to represent his case by putting his appearance in this proceeding, therefore, this Court proceeded to hear petitioner on merit.

¶19

8. For disposal of present Cr.M.P. case record of A.B.A. No. 657 of 2016 has been called for and is available before this Court. In nutshell, it is the case of complainant/O.P.No.2 that Sunil Verma, husband of the petitioner persuaded complainant/O.P.No.2 to purchase a flat at 4^th floor as he is/was proprietor of Shubham construction and out of Rs. 11 lacs (total consideration amount of the flat) complainant/O.P. No.2, paid Rs. 3 lacs through cheques and Rs. 7 lacs in cash to the husband of petitioner who gave possession of the above said flat to complainant/O.P. No.2. It was further alleged by complainant/O.P.No.2 that on 28.04.2011, one M.O.U. was executed by

¶20

¶21

accused acknowledging receipt of Rs. 10 lacs and also agreed for payment of Rs. 1 lac at the time of registration of flat. Later on, complainant/O.P. No.2 came across the fact that map of the constructed flats were approved only upto 3^rd floor by the competent authority and when he made request to husband of the petitioner to execute the sale deed after taking Rs. 1 lac from complainant/O.P.No.2, then husband of the petitioner evaded the request and threatened him of dire consequences. Upon aforesaid allegations, complaint case had been filed and learned Magistrate summoned the accused (husband of petitioner) who filed anticipatory bail before High Court, when his prayer of anticipatory bail got rejected by Sessions Court.

¶22

9. It transpires from record that the deceased husband of this petitioner was admitted to provisional anticipatory bail on 10.08.2017 on the condition that deceased husband of petitioner would deposit Rs. 1 lac before the Trial Court. The deceased husband of this petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1 lac, so it was prayed before this Court to grant further time to deposit the above said requisite amount, thereafter two Demand Drafts of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- deposited by deceased husband of the petitioner.

¶23

10. Further, from the perusal of order dated 03.04.2018 and 08.05.2018 passed in A.B.A. No. 657 of 2016, it transpires that petitioner had further deposited Demand Draft in favour of O.P No.-2 for Rs. 1,32,000/-, thereafter anticipatory bail got confirmed. Further, it is said that petitioner’s husband Sunil Verma died on 04.05.2022 and the proceeding of C/1 Complaint case no. 3391 of 2014 against the deceased Sunil Verma was disposed of on 27.09.2022 by the Court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur and O.P. No.2 never approached the learned Trial Court for taking the demand draft of Rs. 2,32,000 which was deposited before the learned court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur. The present petition has been filed by the widow of deceased Sunil Verma for direction by way of modification in order dated 04.09.2017 and 08.05.2018 in A.B.A. No. 657 of 2016 to return the amount to the tune of Rs 2,32,000/- to petitioner who is widow of deceased Sunil Verma.

¶24

11. It is trite law that aegis of anticipatory bail prevails till the conclusion of the criminal proceeding/trail in normal circumstances unless any direction is passed by the court concern to limit the tenure of the

¶25

¶26

anticipatory bail and same is inferred from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, which reads as under –

¶27

84.2. The second question referred to this Court is answered, by holding that the life of an anticipatory bail does not end generally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or after framing of charges, but can also continue till the end of the trial. However, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

¶28

12. Considering the facts in hand and above legal proposition, this Court finds that husband of the petitioner was an accused in complaint case and was admitted to anticipatory bail on 08.05.2018. During pendency of C/1 Complaint Case No. 3391 of 2014 accused died and proceeding of C/1 Complaint Case No. 3391 of 2014 was disposed of by order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Court of C.J.M., Jamshedpur on account of death of petitioner’s husband on 04.05.2022. It is required to be noted that order dated 27.09.2022 passed by learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur in C/1 Complaint Case No. 3391 of 2014 has not been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner and only case status is on record which shows that above said complaint has been disposed of on 27.09.2022. Since, proceeding of C/1 Complaint Case No. 3391 of 2014 was disposed of, as such aegis of anticipatory bail automatically ended with disposal of the said Complaint case. Therefore, in such circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to modify the order passed in anticipatory bail to the extent of return of deposited amount to the petitioner. Had the accused approached this Court during pendency of the complaint case for return of Demand Drafts deposited by him on the premise that complainant has not received or interested to receive the Demand Draft, then situation would be different. This Court is of considered view that Trial Court being Court of first instance is the proper forum where the issue of return of Demand Draft should be agitated by the petitioner.

¶29

¶30

13. In view of aforesaid discussions, petitioner may file petition for receiving of deposited Demand Drafts before the learned Trial Court.

¶31

14. If the petitioner prefers to file petition, then learned Trial Court, is hereby, directed to consider the application/petition of the petitioner in accordance with law and same be disposed of at earliest.

¶32

15. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. being Cr.M.P. No. 816 of 2023, is hereby, disposed of.

¶33

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶34

Suman/

¶35

Purnima Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Purnima Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surajnath Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Prasad Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand