Suman Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the informant.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.232 of 2021, for the offence registered under sections 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda.

Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier lodged the Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.231 of 2021 against the informant and her husband which was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and they have not been sent up for trial and on the protest petition of the informant the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance in the matter against the informant and her husband. He submits that as a counter blast case, the present case has been lodged later on and it has been registered on 12.07.2021. He submits that the allegations are falsely made of misappropriation of the funds of the firm namely M/s Kaushalya Motors which deals in dealer of Royal Enfield. He submits that the petitioner was working in Ghana (West Africa) and he has returned back from there and with consent of the informant as well as husband of the informant they have started partnership business with regard to the said firm namely M/s Kaushalya Motors in which he has invested a sum of Rs.61 lacs and odd and certain amount was also taken by way of loan for running of the said business. He draws the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit and submits that the documents with regard to financial years of the said firm is there and by way of referring to financial years, he submits that the turn-over of the firm is shown there. He submits that the entire allegation is false and if any case is made out that is of civil in nature. He denies the appointment of the petitioner as Manager of the said firm and he is one of the partners in the said firm and the petitioner and informant are cousin brothers amongst themselves and the informant is sister-in-law of the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to page no.138 and 139 of the supplementary affidavit and submits that even the amount received by the informant and her husband are also shown therein. On these grounds, he submits that privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.

Per contra, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations of misappropriation is there. He submits that it has been falsely stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has invested any amount in the said firm and he was not a partner of the said firm. He further submits that no partnership document is on the record and the petitioner was only working as Manager as the entire business was being looked by him in view of the fact that the informant’s husband was ill at that time. On these grounds, he submits that privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned State counsel submits that the allegations are there and even allegation of using filthy language is also there. On this ground, she submits that privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

Admittedly, there are case and counter case between the parties. The petitioner has lodged Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.231 of 2021 on 11.7.2021. The present FIR was lodged on the next date by the informant on 12.07.2021 and in both the cases the allegations are there of both the parties of misappropriation of the funds, however, the FIR has been registered by the petitioner was investigated and the final form has been submitted and informant and her husband was not sent up for trial and on protest petition the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. Further, the document is on the record brought by the petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit suggest that in the financial year 2016-17 the said firm’s turn-over was Rs.84,54,150.54 and in the financial year 2017-18 the turn-over of the said firm is said to be Rs.1,26,39,949/- and further the document contained at page 138 and 139 suggest that some amount has already been received in cash by husband of the informant as well as the informant of the present case. Thus, in this background, prima facie, it appears that there is dispute between the parties with regard to said firm which is civil in nature and it has been pointed out that both the parties are relatives and there are case and counter case between the parties, and in the attending facts and circumstances, I am inclined to provide privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the petitioner, above named, 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, Godda, in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.232 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.