Sharwan Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.42 of

2019 registered under sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard the parties.

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was a land facilitator

and for arranging suitable non-forest land for the complainantâ€"company on the instruction of the petitioner, the complainant-company delivered a

sum of Rs.27,85,050/- to the petitioner and Rs.18,56,700/- to Shyam Kishore Mahtha but the petitioner has misappropriated the said money. It is next

submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has entered into land facilitating agreement with the

complainant-company in respect of other lands also but the same has been suppressed by the complainant-company and the complaint only refers to

one land. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are false and the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute. It is next

submitted that there is no allegation of dishonest intention of the petitioner at the time of entrustment of money to him. It is next submitted that

admittedly the petitioner facilitated execution of sale deed by Shyam Kishore Mahtha in favour of the complainant-company and though later on it is

claimed by Shyam Kishore Mahtha that he is not the rightful owner, but in-spite of exercising, due to negligence, the petitioner was having no

knowledge that Shyam Kishore Mahtha is cheating the complainant and it is next submitted that in the absence of that, no criminal action can lie

against the petitioner. It is then submitted that the complainant has filed O.S. No. 10 of 2019 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) â€"I, Chaibasa

for recovery of Rs.72,77,217/-from the petitioner regarding the amount paid by the complainant to the petitioner as well as interest thereon hence a

civil dispute directly relating to the transaction between the parties is subjudice at present before the competent court of law. It is next submitted that

the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of

anticipatory bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for

the opposite party no.2 that since the petitioner has failed to ascertain the fact that Shyam Kishore Mahtha is not the real owner of the land, the same

amounts to a criminal act on the part of the petitioner making him liable for the charge for the offence punishable under section 420/406 of the Indian

Penal Code. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has instituted three other cases against the petitioner

relating to land facilitation agreement between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory

bail.

Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner

be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he

shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.42 of 2019 with the condition that the petitioner will

cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile

number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the

case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.