Mafidan Bewa vs The State of Jharkhand

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.

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 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 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 dishounoured because of insufficient fund.

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.

Case-diary has been received.

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.

Learned AP.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of

the petitioners and produced the case-diary.

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.

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.

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.