Deepak Kumar Gupta vs The State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chaibasa (Sadar) P.S. Case No.03 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.07 of

2017, the case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The present case has been lodged on the basis of a written report given by Mani Shankar Prasad, Branch Manager, LIC of India, Chaibasa

Branch, therein alleging that the petitioner is the LIC agent and one Om Prakash Sao is the policy holder. It is further alleged that the petitioner

after preparing documents, he withdrawn the death claim showing that the policy holder, Om Prakash died.

It appears that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No.1586 of 2017, which was

dismissed vide order dated 19.06.2017 as the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. Thereafter, petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.

No.1641/17 for quashing the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., which was allowed vide order dated 31.07.2017 by a Coordinate Bench

of this Court and thereafter the present anticipatory bail application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner is false and fabricated by the

informant in order to save his skin.. It is further submitted that according to normal rules of LIC, the claimant has to file an application with Death

Certificate and thereafter Death Claim Officer, who is then functioning as Death Claim Officer, namely, Mr. Bankira shall enquire into the matter,

verify the Death Certificate as well as death of the policy holder and thereafter submit a report with a note of his verification and satisfaction, he

shall issue the following forms:-

a) Form No. 3783

b) Form No. 3784

c) Form No. 3785

d) Form No. 3816

e) Form No. 3801

f) Form No. 3790

It is also submitted that the claimant has to fill up all the aforesaid forms and submit to the respective Branch. The Branch thereafter direct the

ABM to verify the contents of the forms and shall submit a report and for this the ABM shall visit the house of the Policy holder, shall contact with

the claimant as well as neighbours and shall take their signature in the Forms and submit a report. Mr. Naik is the ABM posted in the concerning

Branch. That after receiving the report of ABM, the Death Claim Officer again verify the matter and forward all the aforesaid forms with the report

of ABM to the Divisional Officer, jamshedpur, Death Claim Department. That after proper verification and scrutiny, the Divisional Officer shall

send a letter to the claimants in the address given in the claim form directing him to inform in writing as to whether the policy holder was treated by

any Doctor or not and after-all, such formalities being done, the Divisional Office shall direct the Branch Office to make payment.

It is further submitted that in view of the facts, stated herein-above, there is absolutely no role of the petitioner and the petitioner has been made an

escape-goat. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner being a poor agent of the LIC, compelled the petitioner to give in writing and on being

directed under such compelling circumstances on the threat of dismissal, aforesaid alleged letter has been written which is absolutely incorrect. That

the petitioner is neither agent of the policy holder nor policy has been opened by him and the Claim Officer, Mr. Bankira, A.B.M., Mr. Naik,

Branch Manager of the Branch and Divisional Officer of LIC, Jamshedpur are the actual culprits who are the main accused of the case and the

petitioner deserves to admit the anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per paragraph 14 of the case diary

wherein this petitioner has given confession his guilty in writing to the Branch Manager, LIC, Chaibasa and para 15, wherein the statement of

Branch Manager, LIC has been recorded, who supported the case and stated that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.1,27,803/- amount of death

claim of Om Prakash, Policy Holder showing the forged death certificate. It is further submitted that para25, statement of Ramchandra Nayak and

para-26, statement of Ahliya Devi, wife of Om prakash, policy holder and para-27 statement of Om Prakash, Policy Holder, who have supported

the case.

In view of the discussion made above and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to admit the anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly,

his prayer for bail stands rejected.