Santosh Kumar Banarjee And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2017

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Santosh Kumar Banarjee And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 September, 2017

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  A.B. A. No. 3966 of 2017
                  1. Santosh Kumar Banarjee
                  2. Manoj Kumar              ...    ... Petitioners
                                       Versus
                  The State of Jharkhand      ...      ... Opposite Party
                                       ------
                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

                 For the Petitioners          : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
                 For the State                : Addl. P.P.
                                              ------

7/01.09.2017

Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011 (G.R. No. 4057 of 2011) registered under Sections 406,409, 420, 467, 471,120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/ 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against petitioner no. 1 is that he received salary as a matriculate since 1965 though he passed the matriculation only in the year 1966 from Rajendra High School (Boys), Sindri and as such at the time of appointment, he was not matriculate. In the year 1965, petitioner no. 1 misappropriated Rs. 35,000/- and in the year 1993, he also misappropriated the money without completing the work allotted to him under the scheme for which a case was registered against him. The allegation against petitioner no. 2 is that he was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father, who died in harness. His service book was also doubtful. The Notified Area Committee, Sindri had given him charge to execute the departmental work for construction of PCC road from the bottling plant to notified area committee colony, but he did not complete the work and hence misappropriated Rs. 2.5 lakhs. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the selfsame allegation, a case was registered against the petitioner no. 1 under Sections 420, 467, 468,471 of the Indian Penal Code and in that case he has been granted anticipatory bail. For the selfsame allegation, Sindri P.S. Case No. 36/04, Sindri P.S. Case No. 30/04 and Baliapur P.S. Case No. 64/05 had already been registered against the petitioner no.2. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners have been put to double jeopardy by the case. Therefore, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

However, learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsel and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioners, named above, be admitted to anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011 (G.R. No. 4057 of 2011), subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court