AMIYA PAUL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending his arrest, the sole petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 13 of 2015 registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. PP for the State.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the informant gave paddy worth Rupees One lakh to the petitioner but the petitioner has not paid the value of the same to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to annexure 2 at page 15-16 of the brief which is the copy of the bank account statement of his paternal aunt and submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been paid on 23.03.13 in the account of paternal aunt of the petitioner. It was also submitted that though the allege occurrence took place in the year 2013 and the complaint was filed in the year 2015. It was further submitted that all allegations are false and the dispute is of purely civil nature and there is no allegation of fraudulent intention of the petitioner right at the inception of the transaction. Hence, this petitioner may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

(3.) The learned Addl. PP opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of his arrest by the police or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JM, 1st class, Ghatshila in connection with Complaint Case No. 13 of 2015 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.