Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1464 (JHR)

Shruti Sahoo v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-17

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Anant Bijay Singh, J. 1. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 422 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3956 of 2013, in the case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120(B) B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is complaint case lodged by one Ramadhar Pratik. In which, the informant-O.P. No. 2 stated that his father was working in the office of Madan Mohan Chourasia and he was eager to get admission of his son in any medical college. He discussed it with the Madan Mohan Chourasia. Madan Mohan Chourasia suggested him that his son namely, Shriyansh @ Priyansh will arrange admission of his son in any medical college in Bhubaneshwar, but he will have to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as advance. Father of the informant paid the said amount to the accused on June 2011. It is further submitted that the Shriyansh @ Priyansh after taking money went to Bhubaneshwar and told the informant and his son that they will have to come Bhubaneshwar. When both informant and his son reached Bhubaneshwar, Shriyansh @ Priyansh introduced them with one Saurabh who was working at Hi-Tech Estate and Promoters (P) Ltd., Bhubaneshwar. Thereafter, Shriyansh @ Priyansh and Saurabh introduced them with Nayak, Aman Prasad and Jiban Sahani and all the accused introduced the informant and his son with L.N. Swain where Shruti Sahoo was also present and L.N. Swain told them that he would manage admission in management quota in Hi-Tech Medical College but he has to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- and the informant paid that amount to L.N. Swain and Shruti Sahoo petitioner no. 1 and kept his mark-sheets of class Xth and XIIth . Thereafter, the informant and his son went to Jamshedpur in the office of Karnataka Education Consultancy and meet with one Aman Prasad and deposited their Rs. 8,00,000/- then Aman Prasad issued Money Receipt in favour of the informant. But his son did not get admission. Then he contacted Aman Prasad and Nayak who told him that he would get admission in the next year in Hi-Tech in its other branch, may be at Rourkela Branch. But next year too the informant did not get admission then he asked the accused persons L.N. Sawain and Shruti Sahoo to pay back his money. Then he contacted Aman Prasad and Nayak who told him that he would get admission in the next year in Hi-Tech in its other branch, may be at Rourkela Branch. But next year too the informant did not get admission then he asked the accused persons L.N. Sawain and Shruti Sahoo to pay back his money. Then the accused persons namely L.N. Swain and Shruti Sahoo issued three cheques of State Bank India which was duly signed by Rudra Pratap Monhanty. He deposited the said two cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and one cheque of RS. 1,00,000/- in the his Bank of India, Amaghata Branch, Govindpur all the cheques were dis-honoured because of insufficient fund. 3. Under order 10.03.2017 petitioners were directed to add the informant as O.P. NO. 2 and to issue notice. It was further directed both the parties to appear on 31.07.2017 for exploring the possibility of reconciliation through the process of mediation. But the possibility of mediation between the parties could not be explored. So the matter was directed to be heard on merits. 4. Case-diary has been received. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although the amount was taken in the year 2011 and the complaint has been lodged in the year 2013 after lapse of two years of the occurrence. Therefore these petitioners deserve anticipatory bail. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and produced the case-diary. 7. On the perusal of the case-diary, it appears from para 3 of the case diary that the I.O. has recorded the statement of Ramadhar Prajapati father of the informant who supported the case of the complainant. As per para 72 and 73 of the case-diary I.O. went to Bhubashwar and with the support of Lingaraj Police Station searched whereabouts of these petitioners. Para 75 reveals that account given to the informant to deposit the money was of one Daru Trimha products Plot no. 85/53 lane no. 07 plus Bhubaneshwar and some money transactions had taken place. 8. These petitioners are not the resident of this State, they are the residents of another State and it is difficult to get their permanent identity and place where they are residing and also the fact that the petitioner no. 85/53 lane no. 07 plus Bhubaneshwar and some money transactions had taken place. 8. These petitioners are not the resident of this State, they are the residents of another State and it is difficult to get their permanent identity and place where they are residing and also the fact that the petitioner no. 1 is lady as mentioned in the cause-title, but as per Vakalatnama it appears that the petitioner No. 1, is the son of one A.C. Sahoo. 9. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the above named petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is, hereby, rejected.