Jharkhand High Court
Anurag Jhawar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 10 October, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 7529 of 2023
------
Anurag Jhawar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate
------
Order No.04 Dated- 10.10.2023
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No.29 of 2023 registered under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the brother of the informant and both of them are directors of a company in the name and style of M/s. Chhotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd. and the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner unauthorizedly transferred the various amount starting from the year 2014 to 2023 to the bank account of the said company at Kolkata and the same was transferred to various accounts and the petitioner has done the transactions without any authority by way of cheating and thus committed criminal breach of trust. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and both the petitioner and the informant are directors of the company and the arrangement of the company was such that the informant looked after the factory operations of the company in Ranchi whereas the petitioner was looking after the administration as well as sales and marketing procurement/purchase and export and import aspects of the company. It is next submitted that the petitioner enabled the company to get export house status in January, 2010 by travelling across the globe for developing market for the product of the company and revived the business in countries like Turkey and Germany. It is then submitted that in or around November, 2011 the informant came with a proposal for separation of the family asset and business but since the same was not acceded to by the petitioner, hence, the informant started behaving in a non- cooperative manner and taking advantage of the faith reposed by the petitioner upon the informant, the informant appointed his son as Vice-President of the company with cash proponent to his said son. It is further submitted that the informant committed illegal acts in respect of the affairs of the company but the sole purpose of the wrongful and illegal act of the informant was to usurp the control of the company for his personal benefits. It is then submitted that the petitioner preferred a petition before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata vide Company Petition No.04 of 2016 and the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata passed a preliminary decree for valuation of the account and audit and also for valuation of the entire movable and immovable asset of the company and as per the order of the N.C.L.T., M/s. L.K. Sarawgi and Associates were appointed as independent auditor to conduct the statutory audit of Chhotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd. for the financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and the said auditor submitted a report on 04.04.2018 but because of delaying tactics, the matter is still sub-judice before the N.C.L.T., Kolkata. It is then submitted that the said auditor does not find any fraud or misappropriation of fund. It is then submitted that the informant in collusion have set up a company in the name of style of Exemplar Cordage LLP in the name of his son Yashovardhan Jhawar and his daughter-in-law Ruchi Jhawar and without permission and authority of board of directors of Chhotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. Ltd. has transferred several machines of Chhotanagpur Rope Works Pvt. to Exemplar Cordage LLP. It is further submitted that the instant criminal proceeding is a glaring example of malicious prosecution initated with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner and to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be disposing of the property by a person who has entrusted with or otherwise dominion there over and such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust. It is next submitted that the petitioner has duly complied with the notice of the I.O. under Section 41A Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and the allegation of misappropriation is also vague as no specific amount has been mentioned and the dispute between the parties is at best a civil dispute. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the informant filed Company Appeal (AT) No. 55 of 2016 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and vide order dated 23.01.2017 the said appeal was disposed of with a direction to the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata to dispose of the Company Petition No. 04 of 2016 at an early date.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of having cheated or thereby induced the informant for delivery of any property nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of the property. The allegation against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and undisputedly, both the petitioner and the informant are still continuing to be the directors of Chhotanagpur Rope Works Pvt.. Undisputedly, prior to lodging of FIR, Company Petition No.4 of 2016 was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata by the petitioner which is still pending. Undisputedly, both the petitioner and the informant are directors and shareholders of the said company, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the dispute between the parties has a civil flavor and there is no allegation against the petitioner of having deceived the informant since the beginning of the business relationship between them, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No.29 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-