Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Kant Dubey @ Krishnkant ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.2681 of 2021
------
Krishna Kant Dubey @ Krishnkant Dubey
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jhalwa Kunwar .... .... ....Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 12.04.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No.
52 of 2019 instituted under Sections 420, 406, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused has sold the land in
the share of the husband of the informant to the representative of the
complainant. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false.
Drawing attention off this Court to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and
Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held in paragraph nos.21 and 22 as under:-
"21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the
accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading
representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case
that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do consent to
the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first
appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale
deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of
executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second
accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and
fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp
vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any
manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not
found, it cannot be said that there was an offfence punishable under
Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code"
It is submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of
impersonating as somebody else and the dispute is between the parties is
purely a civil dispute. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and
willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is
submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender in
the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Garhwa within six weeks from today and
in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Garhwa
in connection with Ramkanda P.S. Case No. 52 of 2019 with the condition
that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear
before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish
his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an
undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the
pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
