Raj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

The defect(s) i.e. 4 and 9(iii) as pointed out by the office with regard to the deficit court fee as well as the typed copy of the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will remove the defect(s) at the earliest after the lockdown period.

So far rest of the defect(s) i.e. 9(i) and 9(ii) are concerned same are ignored for the present.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 162 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1796 of 2016 for the offence registered under sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B)/34 I.P.C arising out of Complaint Petition No.872 of 2016, which was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only allegation which can be attributed against the petitioner is that he introduced the complainant on the request of the complainant to the Branch Manager and he also stood as the guarantor to the loan amount of the complainant, as such, petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability rather if the complainant fails to repay the loan amount to the bank, the petitioner also owes responsibility being the guarantor and the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in other four criminal cases the petitioner has not been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court for grant of bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that some money has been transferred in the account of the petitioner and he has four criminal antecedents of similar nature, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case as it appears from the complaint petition which is the basis of the FIR that on the request of the complainant, the petitioner has introduced the complainant to the Branch Manager, co-accused namely, Satyendra Baranwal and the money has been transferred on the basis of the loan application filed by the complainant. There is no whisper that in what manner the petitioner has cheated or embezzled the amount. From perusal of the complaint petition as well as entire material brought in the case diary, it appears that there is no direct material against the petitioner.

Under the aforesaid circumstances of the case and considering the present situation that the country is passing through a pandemic disease (covid 19) and the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2019, as such, petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 162 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.1796 of 2016 pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur on following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner be released on provisional bail during the lockdown period on personal bond of Rs.5,000/-.

(ii) The jail authority shall ensure medical examination of the petitioner at the time of release due to pandemic disease (covid 19).

(iii) As soon as, the lockdown period is over the petitioner shall produce two sureties of the amount of Rs.20,000/- each before the learned trial court.

(iv) At the time of release, the Civil Surgeon, Jamshedpur shall also ensure medical examination of the petitioner and if requires petitioner shall be taken for quarantine.

(v) Petitioner shall also appear before the concerned trial court on each and every date till conclusion of the trial.

However, the State is at liberty to file petition for cancellation of bail, if any thing is found which has not been brought to the notice of the court.

Accordingly, learned trial court is directed to release the petitioner provisionally on personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- with aforesaid conditions which shall be governed when lockin period is over.