Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 1822 of 2017 1. Ankit Agarwal 2. Neha Poddar ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Adv. For the O.P. : APP For the Informant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. --------- C.A.V. on 28.08.2017 Pronounced on 30/ 08/2017 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.328/16, corresponding to G.R. No.5964/16, registered under Sections 406/420/34 of the IPC.
2. The present case has been registered on the basis of written report given by Dilip Poddar, wherein it is alleged that after the death of his brother-in-law (Bahnoi), he looking his sister and their children and the petitioner namely, Ankit Agrawal is one of them. Further, he alleged that he kept this petitioner in his firm and in lieu thereof informant paid Rs.3,000/- per month and thereafter from the year 2013-14 he paid Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner, Ankit Agrawal. It is further alleged that during that period petitioner, namely, Ankit Agrawal developed illicit relationship with the wife of Pankaj Poddar, who is brother of the informant and so he ousted him from his house and service. Further, he alleged that when in the year 2014 he was checking his Income-Tax file, he came to know that said petitioner namely, Ankit Agrawal fraudulently withdrawn Rs.50,000,00/-, thereafter a family meeting was held and the petitioner Ankit Agrawal was agreed to return Rs.45,000,00/- to the informant and pursuant to that he 2 returned Rs.20,000,00/- vide cheques and assured him to return the rest amount within some time. Further alleged that after stipulated period when he asked his money then these petitioners flatly refused to return the rest amount to the informant. On these allegation the present case has been lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared by filing Vakalatnama and possibility of reconciliation between the parties through process of mediation was explored but it failed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing the bail application has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and fabricated and it is admitted that the petitioner, namely, Ankit Agrawal was working with the informant and on his instruction petitioner Ankit Agrawal withdrawn the amount and the informant has knowledge regarding the operation of the bank account. It is further submitted that prior to lodging of the present case, the petitioner Ankit Agrawal has filed a case being Kotwali P.S. Case No.212 of 2016 against the informant and other and after investigation police has submitted final form and thereafter petitioner Ankit Agrawal has filed a protest petition being Protest Case No.2995 of 2016, which is still pending. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, Ankit Agrawal along with his mother, Pushpa Devi sold 2.5 Kathas of land situated at Charhi, Hazaribagh for the consideration amount of Rs.40,000,00/- and the amount has been handed over to the informant, which has been mentioned at para no.7 and 8 of the bail application and it is incorrect to say that the petitioner has unauthorized withdrawal of Rs.50,000,00/-. So the petitioners deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that as per the sale deed the petitioner Ankit Agrawal sold the 2.5 khatas land situated at 3 Charhi, Hazaribagh in the year 2010 for the consideration amount of Rs.2.5 lacs and the mother of the petitioner had received the entire amount. It is further submitted that no documents has been produced by the petitioner that the said property was sold for the consideration amount of Rs. 40,000,00/- and the said amount was handed over to the informant. It is further submitted that only to save his own skin, the petitioner Ankit Agrawal has lodged a case being Kotwali P.S. Case No.212 of 2016, however the same has been found false and police has submitted final form in that case. It is further submitted that grandmother (Nani) of the petitioner Ankit Agrawal, after the death of the petitioner's father only to protect the petitioner's family from future hardships deposited some amount in the joint account name i.e. Gaytri Devi and Puspa Devi and when she came to know about the conduct of the petitioner Ankit Agrawal she withdrawn the amount. It is further submitted that a complaint case being Complaint Case No.3076/15 has been filed by the complainant Pankaj Poddar bother of the informant against the Neha Poddar wife of the complainant and Ankit Agrawal before the CJM, and after holding enquiry on 31.03.2016 a prima facie case is made out under Section 497 IPC against the Ankit Agrawal and summon was issued, so the petitioners do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP has produced the case diary and submitted that as per para nos. 10, 11, 13 of the case diary witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and as per para 13 of the case diary, I.O has seized the 31 cheque in the name of Aryan and in para 14 of the case diary, I.O has mentioned that the cheque has been signed by the informant, Dilip Poddar but it has been filled up after putting signature and Rs.65,45,000/- has been withdrawn in the name of Aryan. 4 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records and in view of the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner, namely, Ankit Agrawal on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his anticipatory bail applications is hereby rejected.
8. So far petitioner no.2, namely, Neha Poddar is concerned, I am inclined to admit her on anticipatory bail as she is being a women. The petitioner no.2, namely, Neha Poddar is directed to surrender in the court below within four weeks and in the event of her arrest or surrender, the court below shall release him on bail on her furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Ranchi, in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.328 of 2016, corresponding to G.R.No.5964/16, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Fahim/-