Jharkhand High Court
Aslam Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3352 of 2017
------
Aslam Hussain, S/o Late Muzaffar Hussain, R/o House No.62, H.D.
Road, Near Ara Mode, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, Dist. Dhanbad.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. Kumar Gopal S/o Shri Shanker Mahto housing its Branch
Office at 201, Sriram Plaza, 2nd floor, Above Axis Bank, P.O. P.S.
Bankmore, Dist- Dhanbad. ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the part of the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Spl. Judge, Dhanbad in connection
with Bankmore P.S. Case No.26 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.462 of
2017 registered under Sections 406, 420, 408, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the
Indian Penal Code whereby and where under the learned court below while
passing the order of anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No.1794 of 2017 has directed the
petitioner to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the informant by way of demand draft on the
ground that the same is grossly arbitrary and unfair.
3. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Bimla Tiwari vs. State of Bihar & Others passed in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Nos.834-835 of 2023 dated 16.01.2023, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled principle of law that in case
where one of the conditions of pre-arrest bail was for payment of sum of
Rs.75,000/-, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India annulled of the said condition
of payment of Rs.75,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places
reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the High
Court of Delhi was of the view that a condition for deposit of disputed money
cannot be imposed while granting bail. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as
prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer against
the petitioner and submit that since the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I
cum Spl. Judge, Dhanbad has not applied his judicial mind regarding the
merits of the anticipatory bail application but passed the order only on the
payment of demand draft of Rs.3,00,000/- hence, the matter be remanded to the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Spl. Judge, Dhanbad first to consider
the same in merits of the anticipatory bail application.
5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Spl. Judge, Dhanbad has not
applied his judicial mind on the merits of the case, as to whether the petitioner
is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail and has imposed a condition of
payment of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the complainant; which is certainly not
sustainable in law. Accordingly, the order dated 17.11.2017 passed in
anticipatory bail application No.1794 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.
6. The matter is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum
Spl. Judge, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving
an opportunity of being heard to the parties afresh.
7. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 01st of August, 2024
AFR/ Saroj
