Manish Kumar Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar

Both the applications arise from same case, therefore, are heard together and disposed of by this order.

Heard Sri R.S. Mazumdar and Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.S. Prasd, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

It is alleged that while complainant was coming from train, three persons came and they asked him to give Rs. 1,50,000/-, so that a tower can be installed on his house. It is further alleged that on the assurance given by said three persons including accused, complainant delivered Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioners and one another but tower never installed on his house.

It is submitted that story narrated by the complainant is not correct. It is further submitted that it is improbable to believe that any body will pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to some strangers on the basis of conversation between them while traveling in train. It is also submitted that complainant has not produced any paper to show that any agreement took place in between the petitioner and complainant for installation of tower on his house.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the complaint petition as well 5. as S.A. From perusal of the same, I find that complainant had not annexed any agreement executed between the petitioner and complainant for installation of tower.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below within two weeks. If petitioners surrender by that time, the learned court below is directed to enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sri C.A. Moiz, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case no. 900/2011, subject to the conditions as laid down u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.