Pradip Kumar Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Defect no. 9(i) as pointed out by the office is ignored. The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in

connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 614 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 5142 of 2017.

The informant had invested Rs. 1,50,000/- in BMA Trading Company with an assurance to get 10 percent dividend per month. It has been alleged that

the entire amount was siphoned off without the consent of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Broker who had opened the trading account of the informant. It has been stated that

the informant was operating the trading account and since he suffered financial losses the case was instituted against the petitioner making the

allegation of siphoning off the entire amount. It has further been stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

On consideration of the fact that it was a trading account which was opened by the petitioner who happens to be a Broker and there being a plausible

explanation submitted by the petitioner with respect to trading account being operated by the informant, I am inclined to extend the privilege of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and

on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount

each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 614 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.

No. 5142 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This application stands allowed.