Jharkhand High Court
Jiblal Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 11608 of 2022
-----
Jiblal Saw .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Premchand Mahto ... Opp. Party(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sheyakur Rahman, Advocate
Mr. Wazial Ali, Advocate
Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr Gautam Kumar, Advocate
.........
03 /25.01.2024: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant
of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with C.P. Case No.571 of 2022,
registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code. Be it noted that the case arises out of a complaint.
The facts of the case is both the petitioner and complainant are
brothers. It is an admitted case that an amount approximately of Rs.3 lakh
was lying in the account of the father of these brothers. The account bears
nomination and this petitioner was the nominee. A succession case was also
filed. The nominee i.e. the petitioner received the amount during pendency
of the succession case from the bank. On this ground a complaint case was
filed by the O.P. No.2 stating therein that as per the law of succession, he is
also entitled for 50% of the amount, but the petitioner has withdrawn the
amount from the bank.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 has held that
if the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the
investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial
interrogation should be avoided. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sunita Devi and Another vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2023) 1
SCC 178 has held paras 3, 4 and 5 herein:-
"3.The offences alleged against the appellants primarily relate to
cheating in connection with certain land related transactions. In
such circumstances, in our opinion, in the event the appellants
cooperate with the investigating agency, custodial interrogation
would not be necessary at this stage.
4.We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court
refusing pre-arrest bail to the appellants and the subsequent order
passed declining appellants' plea for recalling the order of dismissal
of their petition for anticipatory bail.
5.Let the appellants be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest,
on such terms the court concerned may consider fit and proper."
When a case arises out of the complaint, but natural there is no scope
of custodial interrogation, the only question which has to be seen is whether
the accused will co-operate in the trial or not or he will tamper evidence.
There is nothing in the record to suggest the petitioner will not co-operate in
the trial or he will tamper with evidence.
This petitioner approach the Sessions Court for grant of Anticipatory
Bail, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad. It is
surprising how anticipatory bail in these type of cases are being dismissed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad. The nominee is
entitled to receive the amount from the bank, though the same has to be
distributed as per the law of succession. There is nothing in that entire
complaint that O.P. no.2 ever had filed any application or made any demand
of 50% of the amount. Even if there is a demand, I fail to understand how
prima facie a criminal case is made out.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in a most
mechanical manner without considering the fact that the case arises out of
the complaint, has dismissed the anticipatory bail. At best he could have
directed the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate taking shelter of
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273 and the judgment passed by this High Court in the case of
Birendra Jha alias Virendra Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2001 SCC
OnLine Jhar 386.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the above named
petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate within three weeks
from the date of receipt/production of this order and in the event of his
arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named
petitioner, on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case
No.571 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Judicial Academy
Jharkhand, Ranchi as Judicial Academy Jharkhand has taken up several
measures to sensitize the Trial Judge, District Judges and the Principal
District Judges on bail jurisprudence.
Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the Principal District
Judge, Dhanbad for communicating the same to the concerned District
Judge.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S./
