Hemant Kumar Alias Hemant Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Saw, aged about 37 years, son of Arvind Kumar, resident of Behind Kumar Talkies, Bera, P.O. & P.S.- Dhansar, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶4

Rekha Saha, aged about 46 years, wife of Kunj Bihari Saw, resident of Lindsay Club, Near Hari Mandir, Sahulane, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶5

... ... Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand 2. Anil Kumar Hazra son of Late Ram Kumar Hazra, resident of Vill. Ram Kamal niwas, R.B. Lane, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad. …… Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR -------For the Appellants : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP --------

¶10

Order No. 05/ Dated: 12^th March, 2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶12

The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned A.D.J-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Dhanbad in M.C.A. No.2463 of 2024, by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected in connection with Complaint Case No.1460 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.226 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶13

It appears from the record that despite proper service of notice to the complainant respondent No.2, no-one has entered into the appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2.

¶14

It appears from the previous order dated 19.02.2025 that one more opportunity was granted to the respondent No.2 to appear in this case but no-one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶15

It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that no criminal offence is made out against these appellants in view of the fact that the entire allegations as alleged in the complaint petition was of civil in nature where transaction of loan amount by keeping the gold as a

¶16

security is involved and the main culprit, if any, i.e. Kunj Bihar Saw who has admittedly died on 15.11.2023. The allegations as set out in the complaint petition is that the complainant had given the gold about 99.97 grams to the deceased co-accused Kunj Bihari Saw on 14.05.2013 as a security in lieu of a sum of Rs.1.35 lacs and there was an agreement to return the amount with interest and then in turn the deceased co-accused Kunj Bihari Saw was supposed to return the gold which was hypothecated by the complainant to him but the co-accused Kunj Bihari Saw did not return the said deposited Gold despite the return of Rs.3.31 Lakhs by the complainant to respondent No.2.

¶17

Further it has also been alleged that the complainant respondent No.2 had returned a sum of Rs.3.31 lacs along with interest to the coaccused person but even thereafter the gold was not returned to the complainant by the accused persons and therefore, the complaint case was instituted but the real culprit if any Kunj Bihari Saw died and these appellants being employee (staff) and wife of main culprit Kunj Bihari Saw cannot be held liable for criminal offence.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid admitted fact, it is argued on behalf of the appellants that there is monetary transactions between the parties and if any it is a civil liabilities and no criminal offence is made out and therefore, the entire allegations are false and fabricated. Further, it has also been pointed out that the real person with whom the complainant respondent No.2 had entered into the monetary loan transaction by depositing the gold had died and hence no offence either under Section 420, 406, 323, 324 read with Section 34 and Sections 3(i) x of the SC/ST (POA) Act is substantiated against the present accused appellants who are employee and wife of the main culprit (since deceased) Kunj Bihar Saw and therefore reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants in the case of “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”, (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710 and therefore, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2024

¶20

has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that apart from the cheating and assault, the accused persons who are the appellants before this Court have also used abusive languages by taking the name of the caste in order to commit the offence under Section 3(i) x of SC/ST Act and therefore the appellants do not deserve to get anticipatory bail.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, it is found just and fair to enlarge the appellants on bail in anticipation of their arrests or surrender.

¶23

Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2024 passed in MCA No. 2463 of 2024 in connection with Complaint Case No.1460 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.226 of 2018, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶24

In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.

¶25

In consequence thereof, the appellants named above are directed to be released on bail in apprehension of their arrests or surrender within three weeks from today on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J-I-cumSpecial Judge, SC/ST Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case No.1460 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.226 of 2018 subject to the condition that the appellants will cooperate in the investigation as well as in the criminal proceeding pending in the learned Trial Court, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the provisions of law.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of

¶27

Basant/S.Das

¶28

3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2024

Hemant Kumar Alias Hemant Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Kumar Alias Hemant Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Alias Vikash Kumar Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Pathak Alias Dilip Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shibu Mahto Alias Shivshankar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Turi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kurban Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand