Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 946 (JHR)

Mahanand Junul Kachhap v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-31

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 145 of 2022 instituted under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved to this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. As per F.I.R, allegation is that accused person have withdrawn huge money from the loan account of informant’s mother. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that he has taken Rs. 11,49,910/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ten) from the informant’s mother. Out of total Rs. 11,49,910/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ten) he has returned Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rs. Nine Lacs Fifty Thousand), as such, Rs. 2,44,910/- (Rs. Two Lacs Forty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ten) is remaining to be paid and petitioner is ready to pay the said amount but informant is not accepting. Petitioner has appeared before the I.O. in compliance of notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State assisted with learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has taken false plea of return of the major amount and no mode of payment has been stated before the police in reply to notice under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C. Mother of the informant was ill since 11th March 2022 and ultimately died on 18.03.2022. She was not able to enter into any transaction and the alleged document relied by petitioner is forged and fabricated one. Investigation is at nascent stage and petitioner is not fully disclosing the materials, hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. 6. It appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of cheating and forgery. Taking advantage of her illness and intoxication petitioner has withdrawn huge amount of money of Rs. Investigation is at nascent stage and petitioner is not fully disclosing the materials, hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. 6. It appears that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of cheating and forgery. Taking advantage of her illness and intoxication petitioner has withdrawn huge amount of money of Rs. 15,000,00/-from the account of mother of informant, who was Assistant Teacher along with the present petitioner in Semi Government School St. Paul, UPS, Takra. Mother of informant was induced to open Bank Account for the loan of Rs. 15,000,00/-(Rs. Fifteen Lacs) at the instance of the present petitioner who fraudulently withdrew the said amount. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of allegation coupled with materials on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected. 8. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.