Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Jain @ Pankaj Rajkumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 25 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 6042 of 2020
------
1. Pankaj Jain @ Pankaj Rajkumar Yambal
2. Nishikant Jain @ Nishikant Rajkumar Yambal
3. Rajneesh Jain ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
------
Order No.03 Dated- 25.11.2021
Heard the parties.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Complaint Case No.1326 of 2017 registered under sections
420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in capacity
of Directors of Sydler Packs Company came to Giridih along with
co-accused-Anil Jain, assured the complainant to make the
payment for purchase of aluminum foils but they in criminal
conspiracy with the co-accused persons have committed cheating
by not paying Rs.33,28,075/-. It is further submitted that the
allegations against the petitioners are all false and filing of a
complaint is a mischievous device adopted by the complainant. It
is then submitted that the company of the petitioners has made the
entire due payment to the complainant. It is then submitted that
the co-accused-Anil Jain has incurred a liability of Rs.35,00,000/-
from the said company of the petitioners and the petitioners were
assured by the co-accused-Anil Jain that he will pay Rs.35,00,000/-
to the complainant in respect of the supply made by the
complainant to the company of the petitioners but the said co-
accused-Anil Jain backed out. It is further submitted that the
dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and the
complainant has not filed any civil suit for recovery of the amount
dues. It is then submitted that the company of the complainant
filed Company Petition No.1470 of 2019 before the National
Company Law Tribunal at Mumbai against the company of the
petitioners which is not the money recovery proceeding. Learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of S.K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh And Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662, Sharon
Michael And Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu And Another
reported in (2009) 3 SCC 375, Anand Kumar Mohatta And
Another vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), Department Of Home And
Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 and Dayle De'souza vs.
Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1012. It is then
submitted that the petitioners undertake to jointly pay Rs.
33,28,075/- to the Registrar Civil Court, Giridih without prejudice
to their defence in this case, subject to final decision of the case and
undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is
submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory
bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the opposite party no.2 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 petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of
four months from the date of this order, they shall be released on
bail on jointly depositing a demand draft of Rs. 33,28,075/- with
the Registrar Civil Court, Giridih without prejudice to their
defence in this case, subject to final decision of the case and on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) each with two sureties or in alternative in case they fail
to arrange bailers on furnishing PR bond and depositing cash
security of Rs.25,000/- each of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned J.M., Giridih, in connection with Complaint
Case No.1326 of 2017 with the condition that the petitioners will
cooperate with the trial of the case subject to the conditions laid
down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
In case, the petitioners deposit the aforesaid demand draft, the
Registrar Civil Court, Giridih is directed to keep the said amount
in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank at least for a period of
five years with auto renewal clause.
At the time of conclusion of the trial/proceeding, the court
concerned will pass appropriate order regarding the money if any,
deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar Civil Court, Giridih
in connection with this case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
