Deepak Kumar Singhania vs State Of Jharkhand

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J

Heard the parties.

So far as defect no. 9 (vii) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same once the situation normalizes. As regards

the rest defects are concerned, the same are ignored.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hazaribagh Muffasil P.S. Case No. 66 of 2020.

It has been stated that the informant was acquainted with the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Ganpati Association. On 26.12.2016, the

accused came to the house of the informant and proposed to sell a boring machine at a price of Rs.10,00,000/-, which the informant accepted and

consequently had given a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 27.12.2016 and 28.12.2016, the informant gave cheques of Rs.4,73,000/- and Rs.25,000/-

respectively. All the cheques amounting to Rs.6,98,000/- were got encashed by the accused.

It has been alleged that the accused had given an assurance that the boring machine shall be handed over within two months. On 7.4.2017, a further

cheque of Rs.2,40,000/- was issued by the informant but even then the boring machine was not handed over. The accused had dithered in handing

over the boring machine and had also refused to return back the amount. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Hazaribagh Muffasil P.S. Case No. 66 of

2020 was instituted.

It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had supplied various materials as well as

executed deep boring on the orders of the informant and invoices were issued on different dates for the work executed by the petitioner. It has been

stated that the payments indicated in the FIR were for the earlier work done by the petitioner including the materials supplied to the informant. Mr.

Singh further submits that the petitioner had earlier instituted a case against the informant being Complaint Case No. 2172 of 2017 for the offence

under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and only in order to create pressure upon the petitioner, a false case had been instituted.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant, on the other hand has submitted that an agreement for sale of a boring

machine was entered into between the petitioner and the informant, for which part consideration amount was paid by the informant but with a

deliberate intent to cheat the informant, the machine was never handed over nor the amount returned. It has been submitted that prima facie an

allegation of cheating and criminal breach of trust is made out against the petitioner.

The petitioner has raised a defence that the amount paid by the informant was concerned with the subject matter of the earlier transaction between

the petitioner and the informant though the same has been copiously denied by the informant. A glance at the FIR would reveal that the amount which

was paid to the petitioner was towards the purchase of a boring machine. The claim and counter claim made by both the sides does indicate a

monitory dispute existing between them. It is also to be noted that the complaint case filed by the petitioner was much prior to the present FIR lodged

by the informant, which also enhances to a certain extent the claim of the petitioner.

On consideration of the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from today and on his

surrender/arrest, he will be enlarged on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to

the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Hazaribagh Muffasil P.S. Case No. 66 of 2020, subject to the

conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands allowed.