Anil Singh @ Anil Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1962 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 2972 of 2021
                           ------

Anil Singh @ Anil Prasad Singh ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Lalan Mishra ... Opposite Parties

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl. P.P.

------

Order No.02 Dated- 21.06.2021

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over. In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.334 of 2019 registered under sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken Rs.4,00,000/- as advance for selling the land of the informant but is neither selling the land nor returning the money. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and as per the complaint petition, no agreement was made regarding the transaction which allegedly took place on 05.05.2011 and there is an inordinate delay in institution of the complaint case of about 7 years. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of the alleged entrustment of money to him. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nirmala Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in [2014 (1) East Cr. C 10 (Jhr)] in paragraph no.10, it is submitted that in this case also there is no allegation that the petitioners had intention right from the beginning to cause wrongful loss to the complainant-informant, hence the petitioners cannot be said to have dishonestly misappropriated the alleged amount. It is then submitted that the there is no document to show entrustment of money to the petitioner and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Complaint Case No.334 of 2019 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-