Sanjay Kumar Dalmia vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner with a prayer for modification of the order dated 06.03.2020, passed in ABA No. 1211 of 2019.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 06.03.2020, passed in ABA No. 1211 of 2019, the petitioner upon his showing willingness and readiness to liquidate Rs. 32,01,74,712/- which is the alleged misappropriated amount in monthly installments within a year, was directed to be enlarged on bail provisionally for a period of one month upon on surrender, showing the proof on depositing Rs. 2,67,00,000/- with Jharkhand State Co- Operative Bank Limited, Seraikella after the said order passed by this court and the said provisional bail was to be extended time to time on the petitioner depositing further sum of 2,67,00,000/- with Jharkhand State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Seraikella. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is not able to pay the said amount to the informant bank as because of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner has been ruined financially and a lot of his bills have been withheld by the State government and the amount has not been paid, hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 06.03.2020, passed in ABA No. 1211 of 2019 be modified.

Learned Addl. PP on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for modification and submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is trying to act smart by going back from his undertaking to pay the misappropriated amount but now after getting a breather in shape of the said order, he is going back from his undertaking made before this court and has not deposited any money with the said bank, hence, it is submitted that the prayer for modification of the order dated 06.03.2020, passed in ABA No. 1211 of 2019 ought not be allowed.

Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this court of the considered view that since the petitioner was directed to be released on bail provisionally only upon his being ready and willing to pay the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. 31,01,74,712/- but as he has not honoured his undertaking to deposit the same, hence, this court is of considered view that this is not a fit case, where order dated 06.03.2020 passed in ABA No. 1211 of 2019 warrants modification. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly.