RAHUL KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three bail applications are heard together as they arise from the same F.I.R. i.e. Jharia P.S. Case No. 04 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 95 of 2017, registered under Sections 467 , 468 , 420 , 120B , 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act lodged on the basis of one written report given by Amit Singh, opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that opposite party no. 2 / the informant, who is Director of Narayani Infra Construction Private Limited and basically deals with the business for sale of coal since last 6 years and Rahul Kumar (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1221/2017), Kamkhya Narayan Singh @ Kamakhya Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1618/2017) and Kundan Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1800/2017) are having business relationship and informant's Company lifts coal from e-auction from different collieries. It is alleged that from June to October, 2016, total 92 lakhs of coal were lifted by these persons and they have sold to different parties, but have not given him money to informant.

(2.) Thereafter, informant pursued them on 29.10.2016 . It is alleged that on 29.10.2016, with consent, Kundan Singh (petitioner in A.B.A. No. 1800/2017) has given a cheque of Rs. 38,00,000/- to the informant and assured that the remaining amount will be paid by these persons. It is further alleged that on 31.10.2016 when the informant produced the cheque before the bank, he came to know that that Kundan Singh had closed the account on that date. When the informant on 31.10.2016 met Kundan Singh and Rahul Kumar and inquired as to why he has closed the account, they threatened the informant of dire consequences and Kundan Singh called police and wife of Rahul Kumar lodged a false case against informant i.e. Jharia P.S. Case No. 250 / 2016 in which he was taken into custody and was released on bail. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, instant case was instituted.

(3.) Notices were issued to opposite party no. 2 and on 09.05.2017, both the parties were appeared and possibility of reconciliation of the dispute through the process of mediation was explored, but it failed. So, case diary was called for and the matter was directed to be heard on merits. A.B.A. No. 1221/2017