Vijay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

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.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Seraikella P.S. case no. 120 of 2020 registered under sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 467, 468,

471, 472, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-

accused persons, has take a loan of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- from Jharkhand Sated Co-operative Bank, Seraikella. It is also alleged that the petitioner was

having dormant account and later on, the amount has been fraudulently transferred to the said account of the petitioner and the petitioner is not ready

and willing to repay the same to the bank. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is

further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner produced necessary documents before the bank and also deposited 2%

margin money and gave immovable properties i.e. commercial vehicles and machinery as security valued at Rs. 1,63,66,128/-. It is further submitted

by learned counsel for the petitioner that the business of the petitioner stuck because of COVID- 19 pandemic as such, he could not make timely

payment of EMIs to the bank which resulted in becoming the loan amount NPA. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner relying

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2019) 9

SCC 148 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under in paragraph 11 : -

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx The law clearly recognises a difference between simple payment/investment of money and entrustment of money or property.

A mere breach of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405

IPC without there being a clear case of entrustment.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is case of bad debt of the petitioner and the dispute between the parties is

essentially a civil dispute. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in jail custody for a considerable

period of time hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this is not a case of bad debt simpliciter rather this a clear cut case of

defrauding the banks of use amount of money of several crores, in criminal conspiracy with the officers of the bank who are also co-accused in this

case and the offence of criminal breach of trust as well as Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed by the petitioner in criminal conspiracy

with the co-accused persons and keeping in view that the petitioner has defrauded huge amount of money hence, there is every chance of petitioner

absconding if released on bail hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage.

Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner of defrauding the Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank of huge amount of money of several

crores, this Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above

named petitioner is rejected.

Keeping in view the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is

directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court.

It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID- 19 pandemic.