Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1015 of 2015 Anjani Kumar …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …........Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH For the Petitioners :Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the State :A.P.P. …..... 13/Dated: 08/11/2017 1. The petitionerAnjani Kumar is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 100 of 2015 for the offence under sections 406, 409, 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Court.
2. This case has been lodged on the basis of written report of one Luis Toppo, District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh alleging therein that the petitioner is the owner of Sankat Mochan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that he was directed to purchase paddy by the government from different PACS. As per direction the informant purchased paddy from eight different village PACS and as per the agreement from Sankat Mochan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Morangi, Hazaribagh the paddy was sent for milling and for that 68% was to be supplied by CMRFCI. It is alleged that Sankat Mochan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Morangi, Hazaribagh, had not made available 1,02,627.36 qunital paddy to CMRFCI. The value of aforesaid paddy was Rs.12,82,84,200.00. For realization of the amount substantiated with the paddy a meeting was held by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.08.2014 and 11.09.2014 with the owner of rice mill. It is further directed by the Deputy Commissioner and also telepathically directed by the informant also. The informant vide letter no 294 dated 01.07.2014 and letter no. 519 dated 16.10.2014 have also directed the petitioner to deposit the value of rice, but he had not deposited any of the amount. The petitioner had also not followed the direction given by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. As 2 per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, the Government of Jharkhand had also sent two letters to the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid amount, but inspite of that he had not deposited a single penny, hence, it is alleged that with the criminal intention the owner of Sankat Mochan Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Morangi, Hazaribagh, Sri Anjani Kumar (petitioner) had swallowed the government money to the tune of Rs. Rs.12,82,84,200.00 and he misappropriated the said amount which itself is violation of the Contract Agreement and he had also obstructed the government plan and works and hence prayed for appropriate legal action. On the basis these allegations, the instant case has been lodged. It appears that the instant case that is Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 109 of 2015 has been lodged on 06.01.2015 and the Money Suit no. 09/2014 has been filed before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hazaribagh on 04.09.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that much prior to lodging of this case, petitioner has filed a Money Suit No. 08 of 2014 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hazaribagh.on 04.09.2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that written statement has not been filed as per Order VIII Rule 1 C.PC and the order was passed mechanically. It was further submitted that the F.I.R has been lodged after lodging of the aforesaid money suit. 5. Further, it has been submitted that the District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh who is respondent no. 3 in the aforesaid money suit who is informant of this case and to save his skin, this case has been lodged against the petitioner. It was submitted specifically that there is dispute regarding payment of money in which Section 73 of Contract Act is attracted and no 3 criminality in the matter is attracted and without adjudicating the money suit of the petitioner, criminal case has been lodged. So, taking all these facts the petitioner deserves privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. On the other hand learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P referred order passed in W.P.(C) NO. 3629 of 2019 along with other writ petitions dated 12.09.2014 and in which following directions were given by this Hon'ble Court: “11. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be permitted to deposit 25% of the total amount within a period of four weeks from 15.09.2014 and further 25% within next four weeks and thereafter, the petitioners are directed to make payment of the rest 50% of the amount on or before 31.12.2014, 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact, the petitioners have already supplied some quantity of rice to the PACCS for which the payment has been withheld by the respondent authority. 13. It is made clear that the payment due to the petitioenrs would adjusted by the respondents against price of rice supplied by them, keeping in view the document dated 12.07.2014 by them, keeping in view the document dated 12.07.2014 which is a chart produced by the department itself. 14. In so far as, the dispute with respect to payment on account of market fee, handling charges, transportations and other administrative charges etc and the damages allegedly suffered by the petitioners are concerned, with the 4 consent of the parties, the matter is referred to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) Ranch.The petitioners are permitted to approcach the Member Secreary, JHALsa within a period of two weeks who, in turn, refer the matter to the Lok Adalat. The prcoeeding would be conducted at JHALSA, Ranchi on payment of usual charges borne by both the parties. The parties would take necessary steps for resolution of dispute as early as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date the petitioners approached the JHALSA, Ranchi. It is further clarified that, in the event the matter is not resolved and the Rice Mill Owner or the liberty to approached forum seeking redressal of their grievance.” The learned A.P.P has submitted that the petitioner has not complied the aforesaid direction of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed filed supplementary affidavit on 22.08.2017 brining on record the entire ordersheets of the Money Suit No. 09 of 2014.
8. From perusal of Money Suit No. 08/2014 it appears that the said suit has been filed by the Sankat Mochan Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd through its Director namely, Anjani Kumar (petitioner) on 04.09.2014 with the following prayers: “(a)That after adjudication a decree of Rs. 3,30,43,865.00 decried in Schedule A be passed, directing the defendants to pay the amount to the Plaintiff with interest of Rs. 11% within 30 days from the day of the decree failing which the plaintiff will be entitled to realize the same from defendants through the process of the Court. 5 (b) That it be also declared that the defendants are not entitled to make demand to realize money for the wasted as per agreement. (c) That cost of the suit as be awarded to the plaintiff. (d) That another relief or relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled to.
9. Ordersheet reveals that the Money Suit No. 08 of 2014 has been filed by M/s Sankat Mochan Rice Mill (P) Ltd, whose director is Mr Anjani Kumar in which there are 13 defendants, out of which defendant no. 1 is State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, defendant no. 2 is Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, defendant no. 3 is District Cooperative Officer, Hazaribagh, defendant no. 4 is District Supply Officer, Hazaribagh, defendant no. 5 is Jharkhand State Food Corporation and rest of the defendants i.e 5 to 13 are different PACS, situated in Hazaribagh District. The petitioner herein is Anjani Kumar, the director of the Mill, from the perusal of the agreement arrived at between M/s Sankat Mochan Rice Mill (P) Ltd and Babhanbai PACS Limited.
10. From perusal of the entire ordersheets passed in Money Suit No. 08 of 2014 which reveals that on 09.03.2015, defendant nos. 6 to 13 are different PACS represented through its office bearers situated in the Hazarbiabgh District. Ordersheet further reveals that on 24.06.2016 the case was transferred to the Court of learned Sr. Civil JudgeII, Hazarbiabgh. Further ordersheet dated 05.09.2016 reveals that defendant nos. 3 and 8 have appeared. Further ordersheet dated 22.11.2016 which reveals that defendant no. 4 and 8 appeared through its counsel. Further ordersheet dated 13.07.2017 which reveals that defendant no. 1, 2, 3 and 14 have been debarred from filing 6 written statement and order dated 24.07.2017 reveals that the matter was fixed for 04.09.2017 for appearance of defendant nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12. It appears from the supplementary affidavit in which written statement filed by defendant no. 9, Bariyat PACs has been brought on record. Further, defenant no. 3, District cooperative officer has also filed his written statement on 12.01.2015. Further defendant no. 13 (Maheshra PACS) also appeared and filed its written statement. Further defendant no. 8 (Babhanbai PACS) through its President, namely Manju Devi has filed its written statement on 09.03.2013. 11. It appears that under order dated 30.08.2017 report was called for the concerned trial court on the following points; (a) Whether the court while passing the aforesaid orders as referred hereinabove, has taken into consideration the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C (b) Whether the order was dictated by the learned Sr. Civil Judge himself or recorded by the office clerk/Court Master/Peskar. (c) Admittedly, the quantum of the amount inolved in this case is very huge and it is covered under the Commercial Courts Act. Whether Special provisions of the trial has been give, but the Court overlooked this aspect of the matter.
12. From perusal of report dated 16.09.2017 with regard to A.B.A. No. 1015/2015 dated 30.08.2017 corresponding to Money Suit No. 08/14 submitted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) cumJ.M. Ist Class, Hazaribagh in which it has been mentioned that at the time of passing orders the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C has not been fully taken into consideration and the above referred orders, after 24.06.2016 on transferred of the record, has been dictated by him. The quantum of amount involved in this case is very huge, but due to overlooked 7 this aspect of the matter, special provision has not been given. The next date of the suit is on 20.09.2017 for compliance of order by plaintiff regarding orde for amendment in the plaint and for taking step for the appearance of defendant no. 11 and 12. 13. Further a supplementary report dated 07.11.2017 submitted by Civil Judge (Sr. Divsion)IICumJ.M. Ist Class, Hazaribagh reveals that on 20.09.2017 the record was pending for compliance for order by the plaintiff, but on that very date a petition under Rule 1 and 2 C.PC was field by the plaintiff and next date of trial was fixed on 08.11.2017 for rejoinder on that petition.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that since the mill of the petitioner was sealed on 01.10.2015 he could not furnish the stock detail of the month of September to the bank, but on 11.09.2015 statement of stocks hypothecated for the period of 01.08.2015 to 31.08.2015 was verified and acknowledged by the Bank of India and that was t the tune of Rs. 4,55,76,910.60/. The state meant of stocks for the period of 01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 was prepared in the day hours in the mill by the Account on 01.10.2015 and all of a sudden he was bare handely driven out by the seizure authority and they have not allowed him to take the stock register/ any document anything from the mill but the petitioner has a rough figure of the statement of stock which could be furnished, but the amount is approximately the same of the stock of August. It is submitted that the financial condition of the petitioner is precarious as he is suffering a total loss of about Rs. 13 to 14 crores at the hands of the Deputy Commissioners and Government Officials/Bodies due to their arbitrary, inexperienced act. It is submitted that the value of the fitting, fixtures and machinery of the plant is about Rs. 6 crores and the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 3,30,43,865 in money suit in addition to 8 hypothcecated stock, he is suffering a loss of about Rs. 13 to 4 crores. It is stated that the bank had also initiated a proceeding of recovery of rs. 3,57,11,910.01 under original application number 281 of 2017 and petitioner is also defending himself at that forum also. That the persihable stock present in the plant of the petitioner at the time of sealing has not been handed voe to any official or nonofficial person, hence it was not left for decaying which amounts to criminal negligence. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had also received a notice dated 17.01.2015 being C.C. No. 1/201415 for initiation of certificate proceeding. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the aforesaid money suit has been filed much prior to lodging of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail with cost.
16. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below latest by 18.12.2017 and in the event of his arrest or surrender, the Court below shall enlarge the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/ (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 18 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 100 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. 17. The petitioner is directed to deposit cost of Rs. 2,00,000/ before the Secretary, District Bar Association, Civil Court, Hazaribagh latest by 16.12.2017 and file receipt of the deposition of aforesaid amount before the trial court on the date of his surrender. The aforesaid amount will be used only for welfare of the learned member of Bar Association of Hazaribagh District Court.
18. Further the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the 9 Investigation and he will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence is required by the the I.O. 19. Further, if the I.O wants to record the further statement of the petitioner, he will give 72 hours notice to the petitioner fixing date, time and place and thereafter, the petitioner will appear before the I.O on the date fixed. 20. The petitioner will furnish his photo copy of Aadhar Card and cell number before the trial court on the date of his surrender. Thereafter the I.O will file application before the trial court for availability of the cell number of the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court, court of Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division)cum J.M. Ist Class, Hazaribagh as well as to the Secretary, President District Bar Association, Civil Court, Hazaribagh and a copy of this order be handed over to the learned A.P.P and Nodel Officer for its transmission to the I.O. Let a copy of this order be communicated through Special Messenger Messenger, cost to be borne by Registry. Satyarthi/ (Anant Bijay Singh, J.)