Jharkhand High Court
Partha Chatterjee vs The State Of Jharkhand .... .... .... ... on 7 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.4051 of 2024
------
Partha Chatterjee, Age- 38 Years, Son of Late Jawahar Chatterjee,
Resident of H. no-22B, Kamini Road, Near Rao Colony Maidan,
Pramatha Nagar, P.O. + P.S.- Tatanagar, District- East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand, Pin-831002 .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
With
A.B.A. No.3715 of 2024
------
Sarit Kumar Bose @ S. K. Bose, aged about 87 years, Son of Lt. S.B.
Bose, Resident of 7/232, Tungri, Near Railway Bridge, Chaibasa,
P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District- District- Singhbhum West,
(Jharkhand) .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
With
------
Manoj Kumar Mahapatra @ Manoj Kumar Mohapatra, aged about 56
years, son of Late Satyabadi Behera, Resident of Flat No.204,
Osodhara Complex, Road No.2, Ram Nagar, P.O.- Sonari, P.S.-
Kadma, Dist.- East Singbhum, At Present posted as Associate
Professor, Department of Odia, Kashi Sahu College, Saraikella, P.O.
& P.S.- Saraikella, Dist. Saraikella-Kharsawan.
.... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
With
------
Ramesh Kumar Verma, aged about 64 years, S/o - Late Surya Deo
Narayan, R/o- 4A Surbhi Enclave, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.-
Lalpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
With
------
Prabhat Kumar Pani, aged about 64 years, Son of Madhab Pani,
Resident of Dev Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- Singhbhum East
(Jharkhand) .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate
(In A.B.A. No.4051/2024)
Mr. Parth S. A. S. Pati, Advocate
(In A.B.A. No.3715/2024 & 5542/2024)
Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate
(In A.B.A. No.4409/2024)
Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate
(In A.B.A. No.5009/2024)
Mr. Parth S.A.S. Pati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P.
Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P.
------
Order No.08 Dated- 07-02-2025
Heard the parties.
2. Since all these anticipatory bail applications have been filed with the
self-same prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection
with Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No.69 of 2024 registered under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, all these
anticipatory bail applications are disposed of by this common order
3. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for
grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Chaibasa Muffasil
P.S. Case No.69 of 2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against
the petitioners is that the petitioner of A.B.A. No.4051 of 2024 namely Partha
Chatterjee was the Routine Clerk of Kolhan University, petitioner of A.B.A.
No.3715 of 2024 namely Sarit Kumar Bose @ S. K. Bose was the Class-III staff
in Finance Department who was re-employed after his retirement, petitioner
of A.B.A. No.4409 of 2024 namely Manoj Kumar Mahapatra @ Manoj Kumar
Mohapatra was the coordinator of College Development Council (C.C.D.C),
petitioner of A.B.A. No.5009 of 2024 namely Ramesh Kumar Verma was the
Financial Advisor of the Kolhan University, who was also appointed after his
retirement by way of re-employment and the petitioner of A.B.A. No.5542 of
2024 namely Prabhat Kumar Pani was the Finance Officer of the said Kolhan
University and the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in
furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, have
committed cheating and criminal breach of trust after committing forgery by
tampering with the agreement and thereby defrauded Rs.56,90,754/- of
Kolhan University and the complicity of some the petitioners in the offence
could be found after enquiry committee submitted its report. It is submitted
that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner of A.B.A. No.5009 of 2024 namely Ramesh
Kumar Verma that the said Ramesh Kumar Verma was the member of the
three members committee which submitted its report. It is next submitted
that the whole and sole person responsible for all these illegal acts is the co-
accused Jayant Shekhar who was the Registrar of the said Kolhan University
at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the work order issued, was
not in consonance with the conditions set out in the tender documents and
for the same, the petitioners cannot be held responsible in any manner. It is
next submitted that none of the petitioners has any criminal antecedent. It is
also submitted that the petitioners have no power of taking decision with
respect to payment made to M/s Superstar Security Private Limited,
Dhanbad and it is M/s Superstar Security Private Limited, Dhanbad which is
the main culprit and the beneficiary of the excess payment but it has not been
arrayed as an accused as yet. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was
lodged as per the order of his excellency the Governor-cum-Chancellor,
University of Jharkhand.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694
paragraph-112 of which reads as under:-
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases
of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case.
The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should
consider with even greater care and caution because
overimplication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely,
no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full
investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail."
and submits that on the basis of settled principle of law regarding the
factors and parameters to be taken into consideration while dealing with
anticipatory bail, all these petitioners deserve the privileges of anticipatory
bail
6. It is next submitted that the defrauded amount has been secured as the
M/s Superstar Security Private Limited, Dhanbad has intimated the
Registrar of the University empowering it to deduct the defrauded amount
from the payments to be made by it and to release the remaining amount
payable to the said agency. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be
given the privileges of anticipatory bail.
7. Learned Addl. P.Ps appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits
that this Court, earlier vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed in A.B.A. No.7191
of 2024 has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the co-accused and
submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioners in furtherance of
common intention with the co-accused persons, dishonestly misappropriated
huge amount of money, their custodial interrogation is required during the
investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the forgery and
recovery of the cheated amount and the amount in respect of which criminal
breach of trust has been committed. It is then submitted that in view of the
influential positions held by the petitioners, no free and fair investigation can
be done if the petitioners are given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is
lastly submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail.
8. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners
alleged to have been committed forgery and cheating of huge amount of
money as well the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the
investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a
fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privileges of
anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above-
named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Animesh/
