Neeraj Agarwal vs State of Jharkhand and Sujata Prasad

R.K. Merathia

I.A. Nos. 82 & 81 of 2012

By a common order dated 04/09/2009, both these anticipatory bail applications were disposed of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the condition of furnishing bank guarantee for a total sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- jointly and severely by the petitioners.

Referring to Annexure-1, it is submitted that on 19/09/2009 a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- + Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in the bank for furnishing bank guarantee but the bank refused and, therefore, the said amount was withdrawn on 22/09/2009. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioners approached the complainant/opposite party no. 2, for receiving the draft of the said amount but the matter has been lingered. By referring to last page of Annexure-1, it is further submitted that ultimately, on 23/02/2011 a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- was prepared in the name of O.P. No. 2 Sujata Prasad and the petitioners approached her to receive but it was refused.

In the circumstances, the petitioners pray for modification of the order dated 04/09/2009 to the extent that instead of bank guarantee, they may be permitted to deposit the amount by way of bank draft.

Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 denied and disputed the said submissions and submitted that the order granting anticipatory bail, be recalled as the petitioners have failed to comply with the said order, passed far back on 04/09/2009.

After hearing the parties, I am inclined to modify the order dated 04/09/2009 to the extent that the petitioners will deposit a bank draft of Rs. 2,75,000/- in the name of the complainant-O.P. No. 2 in the court below while surrendering within four weeks from today and the learned court below will release them on bail in terms of the order dated 04/09/2009. The complainant-O.P. No. 2 will be at liberty to withdraw the said draft.

Such deposit and/or withdrawal will not prejudice the respective cases of the parties and will be subject to final decision of the case.

Both these interlocutory applications stand disposed of.