Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Nuniwala Bhakat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4269 of 2021
------
Smt. Nuniwala Bhakat .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 13.07.2021
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects
pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending her arrest in connection with Potka P.S. Case No. 31 of
2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 2487 of 2013 instituted under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 409, 120-B 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 petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-
accused person misappropriated of Rs.1,52,52,073.96/- by opening fictitious
Kisan Credit Card Loan accounts. It is further alleged that on 13.07.2020,
Rs.2,69,500/- was deposited in the account of petitioner and the same was
withdrawn on different dates. It is submitted that the allegation against the
petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the co-accused who faced the trial,
has since been acquitted vide judgment dated 08th September, 2017 passed in
G.R. Case No.2487 of 2013. 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 on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there
is specific allegation against the petitioner of crediting Rs.2,69,500/- in her own
account by misappropriating and since the petitioner was not facing the charge
along with the co-accused person hence the evidence regarding transfer of the
money to the account of the petitioner who is not produced by the prosecution
in the said trial. It is next submitted that the money was earned by the petitioner
by way of misappropriation. It is also submitted that the custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of
misappropriated money. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be
given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner
and the requirement of her custodial interrogation during the investigation of
the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the
petitioner be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
