Lalita Kuer Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2821 of 2023

Lalita Kunwar, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Rajnath Ram, R/o At Block Colony, Quarter No. B, Type, PO & PS & District Garhwa, State Jharkhand. … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Vikash Kumar, S/o Late Gulabchand Ram, R/o Village Basna, PO & PS Bishrampur, District Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶6

… Opp. Parties

¶7

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.

¶9

Order No.06/Dated- 10.01.2025

¶10

Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

¶11

The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside/quashing of order dated 22.06.2023 passed by learned C.J.M. Garhwa in Misc. Cr. App. No. 4020 of 2022 whereby the learned C.J.M. rejected the application of the petitioner filed under the provision of Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for the release of money amounting to Rs.5 Lakhs lying in the bank of opposite party No.2 Branch Manager SBI, personal banking branch, Garhwa as guarantee (security) money deposited by accused/convict Yogendra Ram, in compliance of order of the learned Sessions Judge Garhwa passing in B.P. No. 1471 of 2017.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in G.R. Case No.2045 of 2016 petitioner was informant, which was instituted for the offences under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not take cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act rather cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 406 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. and trial proceeded against the accused persons which has culminated into conviction and sentence

¶13

of the accused persons. It is further submitted that during pendency of the trial of the above G.R. case regular bail application was moved by accused Yogendra Ram (now deceased) and he was granted bail vide order dated 02.03.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gharwa in D.P. No.141 of 2017 whereby the petitioner Yogendra Ram was directed to be released furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each with condition that he shall file a bank guarantee worth Rs.5 Lakhs within a period of ten days of his release before the learned Lower Court. It is further submitted that after conviction of the accused person Yogendra Ram, an appeal was also abated due to death of the accused. The present petitioner filed an application before the concerned learned Trial Court for release of Rs.5 Lakhs deposited as bank guarantee as a condition forthwith of the accused which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 22.06.2023 (Annex.-4). It is further submitted that the petitioner was cheated for the aforesaid amount and there was an order for depositing the said amount by the learned Sessions Court at the time of granting bail to the accused. After the conclusion of trial, the accused person was sentenced to imprisonment and fine but there was no direction for release of the aforesaid amount in favour of the informant/petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner for release of the aforesaid amount was dismissed without considering the genuine grievance and entitlement of the petitioner to the aforesaid amount deposited in this case. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner is entitled for release of the amount in his favour.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the order for depositing of amount was passed by learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application of the accused Yogendra Ram (deceased). The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is subject to revision before the learned Sessions Judge itself, therefore, by way of this miscellaneous petition no interference is required and this miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record, it appears appropriate to pass an order that petitioner should take proper remedy before the learned Sessions Court by filing the criminal revision against the impugned order. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Sachin

Lalita Kuer v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Kuer v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dunku Maraiya Dhanku Maraiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Brijesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Vs Narcotic Control Bureau

Rohit Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kailash Kumar Tibrewal Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dunku Maraiya  Dhanku Maraiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Brijesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Vs Narcotic Control Bureau

Rohit Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kailash Kumar Tibrewal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dunku Maraiya Dhanku Maraiya Vs State of Jharkhand