Jaya Singh Deo And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No.247 of 2020

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the instant interlocutory application has been filed for ignoring the defect Nos.9 (iv), (v) pointed out by the stamp reporter.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court towards para-3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 11.12.2019 submits that in para-16 of the anticipatory bail application, it has been inadvertently mentioned that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 07.11.2019 but as a matter of fact the same is wrong. The anticipatory bail application was allowed but some onerous conditions have been imposed which was to be complied with within prescribed period, even though the petitioners were never ready and willing to fulfill such conditions and further observation made that if order is not complied then anticipatory bail will be cancelled. Under such circumstances present application has been filed. It is then submitted that in view of the averments made in para-3 of the said supplementary affidavit, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter at serial Nos.9 (iv), (v) consequent upon averment being made by the petitioner in para-16 of the anticipatory bail application that this anticipatory bail application has been filed upon the prayer of bail of the petitioner being rejected by the session judge, that the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI, Ranchi is not the rejection order, be ignored. It is then submitted that the petitioners have clarified that this petition has not been filed in respect of rejection rather they have preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this Court as the conditions imposed in the order of anticipatory bail are onerous. Hence, it is submitted that the defect pointed out at serial Nos.9 (iv), (v) by the stamp reporter be ignored.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the defects pointed out at serial Nos.9 (iv), (v) by the stamp reporter is ignored.

This interlocutory application stands disposed of.

A.B.A. No.8474 of 2019

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.20 of 2019 instituted under Sections 406/420/467/468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.P.P appearing for the State.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to implead the informant as opposite party No.2 of the instant anticipatory bail application.

Permission is accorded.

The petitioners are directed to incorporate the name of the informant as opposite party No.2 of the instant anticipatory bail application during the course of the day.

Let notice be issued to O.P. No.2 under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week by the petitioners, failing which, this anticipatory bail application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 was financed a sum of Rs.3,79,344/- by the complainant-Company for purchase of a new Baleno VXI Car on 11.04.2005 and there is no allegation against the petitioner No.2 and he has been arrayed as an accused in the case only because he is the husband of the petitioner No.1. It is then submitted that the complaint was filed on 06.11.2018 more than 13 years and the complaint filed by the complainant is not supported by affidavit still even without following the principles of law as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another versus State of U.P. & Others reported in (2015) SCC 287, the complaint was forwarded to the police station for institution of the F.I.R. and the dues if any, is hopelessly barred by time. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically civil in nature and there is no allegation of any dishonest intention at the time of alleged entrustment of money to them. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

List this case on 31.03.2020.

Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts as discussed, I am inclined to pass an interim order of anticipatory bail to the petitioners till 31.03.2020. In case of the petitioners being arrested by the police on or before 31.03.2020, they shall be released on bail provisionally on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the officer concerned in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.20 of 2019 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.