Arup Chatterjee vs State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Roshan, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Tisra, P.S.Case No. 04 of 2023 for committing offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the I.P.C, pending in the Court of learned J.M.Dhanbad.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the F.I.R. itself is not maintainable, inasmuch as, for the same cause of action an investigation was done by the Central Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 1635 of 2014. Since an investigating agency has already investigated the matter in detail and submitted the charge-sheet on 30.11.2022, as such the State should not have filed the case for the same cause of action.

He further submits that so far as fact of the instant case is concerned the company has already tendered a draft of Rs. 5,25,000/- in favour of the informant namely, Maharaj Singh which was received by the counsel for the informant Yesterday itself. He further contended that though the cause of action of the instant case relates to chit fund matter in which many people were alleged to be defrauded and the amount was deposited in the Company in the year 2012; however, the instant police case has been filed in the year 2023 whereas the petitioner who was the Director resigned from that Company way back in the year January, 2013.

He lastly submits that since the charge-sheet has already been filed by the CBI and even in the instant police case the charge-sheet has been filed by the police, as such continuation of custody of this petitioner is against the settled principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” and this is a fit case where bail should be granted because there is no apprehension shown by the State counsel that the petitioner will tamper with any evidence, either oral or documentary, because he has already resigned from the company way back in the year 2013.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III oppose the prayer of bail and submits that a large number of people have been affected by this fraud, however, he could not dispute the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case by the police as well as the CBI, for the same cause of action.

Having regard to the facts of the case and submissions made by the rival parties it appears that the entire money was deposited in the Company in the year 2012. Admittedly the petitioner was Director at that time. It is also on record that due to the said fraud a detailed investigation was made pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(PIL ) No. 1635 of 2014 and pursuant thereto; CBI investigated the entire case being No. R.C.8/A of 2015-D and submitted charge-sheet on 30.11.2022. It also appears that the police has also submitted charge-sheet in the instant case.

Since the charge-sheet has already been submitted by the police in this case and also the fact that the petitioner has already resigned from the Company as a Director on 01.01.2013, there is no likelihood that he will tamper with the evidence, either oral or documentary. Further, the aforesaid defrauded amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- has already been returned to the informant by the present company. It further transpires that the petitioner also remained in custody for more than four months; as such this court feels that the petitioner should be granted bail.

Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.Dhanbad, in connection with Tisra, P.S.Case No. 04 of 2023.

Further, the petitioner shall appear during trial before the learned trial Court, failing which the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order.