Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Ranjan And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4494 of 2017
1. Rajesh Ranjan, son of Chotte Lal Yadav
2. Sambhunath Singh @ Shambhu Singh @ Shambbu Singh@
Shambbunath Singh, son of Binod Singh
Both residing at villageDigharikala, PSBengabad,
PO&DistrictGiridih .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kishore, APP
For the Informant : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
06/30.06.2017 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
2. The petitioner no. 1 was Incharge Principal, Khandoli Institute of Technology and petitioner no. 2 is the trustee of Vivekanand Educational and Charitable Trust. They have been made accused in Bengabad P.S. Case No. 250 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 2826 of 2016 registered under Sections 461/379/406/420/467/468/120B /34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are in judicial custody since 06.04.2017.
3. Opposing the instant application for grant of bail, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP have contended that during the investigation incriminating materials have been collected against these petitioners. There are allegations of tempering with the evidences and threatening the witnesses. The petitioners are alleged to have forged the signature of the informant and withdrew money from the bank.
4. The informant was the Managing Trustee of Vivekanand Educational and Charitable Trust. It is stated that when he was terminated as the Managing Trustee on 29.06.2016, the informantO.P. No. 2 came to this Court by 2 filing W.P.(C) No. 4925 of 2016, challenging the order of termination dated 29.06.2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.11.2016. In the meantime, on 12.08.2016 he gave a written report to the police alleging that the petitioners and other employees of the Institute are preparing illegal documents and collecting illegal money from the students for their personal use. He further alleged that the accused persons broke open the lock of the Institute and took away MinutesBook of Vivekanand Educational and Charitable Trust and Khandoli Institute of Technology. Though, he claims that he continued to function as Managing Trustee of Vivekanand Educational and Charitable Trust, he failed to specify the documents which were tempered by the accused persons. At that time, there was no allegation of forging signature of the informant and withdrawing money from the bank. The petitioners have pleaded that there are as many as 11 cases pending between the parties and at the instance of O.P. No. 2 as many as 8 criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioners and others. In the counteraffidavit, the only stand which has been taken by the State is that the petitioners were collecting money from the students and they broke open the lock of the office. Mr. A. K. Das, the learned counsel for the informant states that two of the students have stated before the police that these persons were demanding illegal money for admission, however, I find that no First Information Report has been lodged, on such complaint. It is stated that the office bearers of the Trust have instituted T.S. No. 24 of 2016 seeking a declaration that the informant namely, Arvind Kumar is not the Managing Trustee of the Vivekanand Educational and Charitable Trust. It is, thus, apparent that there are allegations and counterallegations by the parties against each other.
35. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, abovenamed, are directed to be released on bail, on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 250 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2826 of 2016, with the condition that they shall remain physically present in the trial court regularly, but for special circumstances, and if they try to temper with the witnesses during the trial, the prosecution shall move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail.
6. The instant application is allowed. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial Court through 'Fax'.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Tanuj/