Jharkhand High Court
Md. Salim vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.3309 of 2022
------
Md. Salim .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Union of India through the CBI .... .... .... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kr. Sahu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
For the C.B.I : Mr. Navneet Sahay, AC to ASGI
------
Order No.05 Dated- 05/08/2022
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of
privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No.08 (A)/2015 (D)
registered under Sections 409, 420, 465 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4,
5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated
04.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.5053 of 2019 and the fresh ground is that in the
meanwhile the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has passed three judgments
which are as follows:-
(i) Judgment dated 28.05.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.522 of 2021 arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2096 of 2021 in the case of Nathu Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
(ii) Order dated 07.10.2021 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s).5191 of 2021 in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Another
(iii) Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5442 of
2021 in the case of Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another;
and submits that in view of the said three judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for the C.B.I.
vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submit that this Court vide order dated 04.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.5053 of
2019, rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner merit and
the allegation against the petitioner is of serious nature and there is no dispute
by the petitioner that the company of which he is the director, received
Rs.87,04,43,166/-from gullible investors/depositors which his company is not
repaying to the depositors from whom the said money was collected without
any plausible reason. It is next submitted that though the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioner was rejected on 04.09.2019, yet the petitioner has not
surrendered before the trial court and has succeeded in delaying the trial of the
case so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an influential person
which is apparent from the fact that so far he has managed to save himself from
being apprehended and being put to trial, hence there is every chance of the
petitioner tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail. It is
therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
Considering the fact that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
has been rejected on merit, this Court is of the considered view that the
principle of law settled and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the said three judgments as already indicated above, is not a sufficient ground
to review the order dated 04.09.2019 passed in A.B.A. No.5053 of 2019.
In view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his
conduct in not appearing in the trial court so far, this Court is not inclined to
give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer
for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is
rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 04.09.2019 passed
in A.B.A. No.5053 of 2019.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Animesh/
