Jharkhand High Court
Nisha Kiran vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2019
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 7021 of 2018
.....
Nisha Kiran, wife of Nirmal Chandra Deepak, resident of Qrt. No. 1110, Sector-12/C, P.O.- Sector-12, B.S. City, P.S.- B.S. City, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
...... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Uday Prasad Sharma, son of Ram Sewak Sharma, resident of Ram Nagar Colony, Block-D, Near Shiv Mandri, Chas P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
...... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Azeemudin, A.P.P
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
.......
08/05.04.2019 Petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 14 of 2017
for the offence registered under sections 420, 406, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of N.I. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is wife of one Nirmal Chandra Deepak who had some business transaction with the complainant Uday Prasad Sharma. As per allegation some money has been invested on the advice of husband of the petitioner by the Opposite Party No. 2 which has not fetched interest as expected. To assure, the Opposite Party No. 2, husband of the petitioner has given a cheque duly signed by his wife (petitioner) of Rs. Five Lacs which has been dishonoured by the bank and as such, the present complaint case has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that wife was obeying the desire/order of her husband Nirmal Chandra Deepak. She has no business transaction with the O.P. No. 2 rather business transaction of O.P. No. 2 was with husband of the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein at para-4 that he undertakes to return entire cheque amount of Rs. Five Lacs to the complainant within one year. As such, petitioner who is a lady having a child may be enlarged on anticipatory bail, as she has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has vehemently argued the case and has submitted that since the cheque of the petitioner has bounced, as such, learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance under sections 420, 406, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of N.I. Act, as such, she may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the assurance given by husband of the petitioner by filing an affidavit.
Considering the materials brought on record, it is admitted that cheque issued by the wife has bounced which lead to the filing of complaint case but there is no material on record showing that petitioner Nisha Kiran has misappropriated the entrusted amount nor she has committed any fraud with the Opposite Party No. 2 nor she has committed any criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in defrauding the Opposite Party No. 2. She has only discharged her obligation as a wife, which is prevalent in the society by issuing a cheque of Rs. Five Lacs on the direction of her husband which is admitted by the husband Nirmal Chandra Deepak by filing an affidavit before this Court.
Accordingly, petitioner named above is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her surrender/arrest within four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 14 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
However, husband of the petitioner is directed to comply the terms and conditions as mentioned in supplementary affidavit by repaying Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs) to Opposite Party No. 2, failing which this Court shall take serious view of the matter.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Pallavi /