Jharkhand High Court
Arup Chatterjee vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B. A. No. 11890 of 2022
Arup Chatterjee . .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2. Rajendra Siddoji Redekar .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P. C. Sinha, AC to G.A.III
For the Informant : Dr. A. K. Singh, Advocate
......
04/11.01.2023. The petition for bail on behalf of the petitioner above-named who is
in custody since 27.08.2022 is moved for grant of regular bail in connection
with Sukhdeo Nagar P. S. Case No.319 of 2022 registered under Sections
406, 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N. I. Act.
Heard the parties.
As per the case of the prosecution, the informant is the Director of Onva
Telesystems Pvt. Ltd. And the petitioner happened to be the Director of M/s
Pramani Communication Pvt. Ltd. In pursuance of an agreement dated
31.10.2009, various Studio Broadcasting equipments were given on hire for a
sum of Rs.4 Lakh 50 thousand to the company of the petitioner but the rents
were not paid with regard to the equipments given on hire. Several cheques
were given and some of which got dishonoured. It is alleged that neither the
rent was paid nor the equipment was returned. The further case of the
prosecution is that all the Studio Broadcasting equipments were given to the
accused by taking business loan from the Bank and since the rental amount
was not paid as per the agreement, the business loan was declared to be NPA.
It is alleged that the informant had to suffer great financial hardship as the
Bank recovered the amount from the informant by selling his personal
property.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant
criminal case has been filed to realize the outstanding amount and that too
after a long time i.e. after more than 12 years. The informant instead of
pursuing the civil remedies has filed the present criminal case after the remedy
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act become time barred. It is further submitted
that the instant FIR is the second one as it will be apparent from the report of
the informant himself lodged on 01.06.2012 with the Officer-in-Charge and
the copy of which is part of the FIR.
Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant
has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that from the tone and
tenor of the FIR, it is crystal clear that there was an intention to deceive from
the inception and the informant was defrauded of Rs.1,03,50,000/- which was
due for the hire charges of electronic euqipments, camera etc. and was
misappropriated by this petitioner.
It is further submitted that merely because there is civil remedy
available, it does not meant that the informant is deprived by criminal remedy.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments :-
(1) 2019 (3) JBCJ 19 SC at Paras 10 & 14.
(2) 2011 (5) SCC 708
(3) 2009 (8) SCC 751
(4) 2006(6) SCC 736
During intervening period of 12 years, the informant had been
complaining to the police authorities, copy of which has been annexed with
the instant bail application, failing which, the instant case has been lodged.
It is also submitted that this petitioner has criminal antecedent and is
involved in not less than 14 cases mostly under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and
the list has also been furnished herewith.
It is definite case of the informant that under the agreement executed
on 31.10.2019, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- per month was to be paid by the
petitioner to the informant, out of which, part of the amount was paid from
time to time.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as
discussed above, and the assertion that part payment has been made, the bail
application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner named above 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 Court below.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
