DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner namely Dharmendra Kumar, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sidgora P.S. Case No. 18/16 corresponding to G.R. No. 651/16 for the offence registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was running business alone, but when his son namely Pawan Kumar returned after completing his education, he started looking after the business and was reporting about the business time to time to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the month of April 2015, the son of the petitioner namely Pawan Kumar informed the petitioner of the missing of the cheque book from his office. It is further submitted that thereafter petitioner informed the Bank Manager about this incident by way of written application on 23.04.2015 that the cheque book containing cheque nos. 484911 to 484930, out of which two leaves/cheques were signed by him has been lost, so do not pass any cheque on this account. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is father of the co -accused who was looking after his business, so he does not have the same liability as his son.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has submitted that it has come from the F.I.R. that both the father and son are the accused and in the impugned order it has come that they together run the business of packers and movers and the cheque of Rs. 6 lacs issued by them has been bounced, so they do not deserve of the privilege of anticipatory bail.