Manoj Kumar Mandal Alias Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Kumar Mandal Alias Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 July, 2015

Bench: H. C. Mishra

        IN      THE      HIGH    COURT          OF    JHARKHAND        AT    RANCHI
                           B. A. No. 3760 of 2015
        Manoj Kumar Mandal
        @ Manoj Kumar                                  .....  ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
        The State of Jharkhand                            ..... ...    Opposite Party
                                  --------
               CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
                                  ------
        For the Petitioner        :        Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
        For the State             :        A.P.P.
        For the Informant         :        Mr. Avishekh Kumar, Advocate
                                  --------

  4/ 13.07.2015

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution, as also learned counsel for the complainant-informant.

The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 406, 420 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Sadar (Mesra) P.S. Case No. 210 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 3051 of 2014.

From the complaint petition, on the basis of which police case was instituted, it appears that there is dispute between the parties, who were working as Cable Operators. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner was the employee of the complainant and they were engaged in the work of cable operation in BIT Mesra area and the petitioner, being the employee of complainant, had received the cost of 200 set top boxes and had also received the monthly rent from the customers, which were not deposited in the firm and in that way, the complainant has suffered a loss of about Rs. 10.50 lakhs. It is also stated in the complaint petition itself that the petitioner had changed the set top boxes and set top boxes of different company were supplied to the customers and accordingly, the work of cable operation was being carried out by the petitioner with the set top boxes of different company.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has prayed for bail.

Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the informant have opposed prayer for bail and it is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner to have misappropriated the huge amount of money of the complainant. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the informant that set top boxes, which were changed by the petitioner, were also not handed over to the petitioner.

There appears to be monetary dispute due to business rivalry between the parties. In the facts of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Mandal @ Manoj Kumar, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Laxmi Kant, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, or his successor, in connection with Sadar (Mesra) P.S. Case No. 210 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 3051 of 2014.

( H. C. Mishra, J.) R.Kr.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court