Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Ram 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. 11575 of 2022
Vijay Ram ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Deepak Kumar ... ... ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: Sri Ananda Sen, J.
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
---------
Oral Order
04/Dated: 25.01.2024
Heard the counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in this case for the
offence punishable under Section(s) 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2
personally.
This case arises out of a complaint. The complainant had
alleged that he had given money to accused no. 1 for getting the
vehicle through the Welfare Department. The accused no. 1 had
taken the money in presence of this petitioner, who claimed himself to
be the official of the Welfare Department. It is further alleged that
neither the money was refunded nor the vehicle was supplied to the
complainant. Thus, the complainant has been cheated.
On the basis of a complaint, the cognizance was taken. The
petitioner approached the Principal District Judge for grant of
anticipatory bail. The same was rejected.
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."
Time and again, this Court has held that in a complaint case,
there is no scope of any custodial interrogation. In spite of this, it is
surprising the manner in which, the Principal District Judge had dealt
with this anticipatory bail application and passed the order rejecting
the same. Further there is nothing on record which would remotely
suggest that the petitioner will not face trial or will tamper with the
evidence. When there is no material to suggest that the petitioner will
not cooperate in trial or will tamper with evidence then anticipatory bail
should have been granted in this case which arises out of complaint.
In fact the magistrate should release the accused after appearance on
summons in a complaint case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and the allegations made
therein, when admittedly the amount was not refunded to the
complainant, I direct the Magistrate, who is in seisin of Complaint
Case No. 604 of 2019 for compliance of the summons issued and for
appearance of the above named petitioner and on his appearance,
the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.,
Ramgarh, in connection with Complaint Case No. 604 of 2019,
subject to conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Let a copy of this order be placed before the Principal District
Judge, Ramgarh for perusal.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
APK
