IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2511 of 2011
----
1.Ramesh Kumar Singh
2.Smt. Laxmi Singh
3.Rohit Kumar Singh .......... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ........ Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
----
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
----
05/ 22.09.2011
Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for
the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in this case
which has been registered for the offence committed under Section
406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/ 34 of the I.P.C., pending in the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
complainant has filed the complaint case being Complaint No.2160 of
2008, alleging therein that the complainant has received summon
along with document of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, and
whereupon he came to know that he has been summoned for being
Guarantor. Whereas the complainant never stood as Guarantor for
the petitioner and the land which is subject matter of Guarantee does
not belong to the complainant. It is further alleged that the
complainant neither appeared before any Bank nor has put any
signature on any paper. As a matter of fact, the complainant had a
piece of land in Plot No.1384 which was acquired by the State
Government and was paid compensation for that. On 30.4.1985, the
petitioner has manufactured some document in the name of
complainant and the Bank did not properly enquire and investigate
the matter and without proper enquiry, sanctioned a huge amount of
loan in favour of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner has cheated the
complainant.
Mrs. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the Bank has filed the O.A.Case No.118 of 2008
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Ranchi for recovery of the
loan against all the petitioners along with the Guarantor, who is the
informant(complainant) in this case namely Mr. Ganesh Saw and
other two persons namely Rajkumar Saw and Ajit Saw and all these
persons were made defendants in this case. After hearing all the
aforesaid parties, the aforesaid case has been instituted against all
the defendants by the judgment dated 29.9.2010. It is further
contended that the present informant(complainant), who is the
Guarantor namely Ganesh Saw appeared in the aforesaid case and
contested the matter and thereafter the final judgment and decree
was passed against all of the aforesaid persons including the
informant on 29.9.2010. The informant namely Ganesh Saw has not
preferred any appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Ranchi till date. Therefore,
after the judgment and decree passed against the informant, even
after hearing him, the present case which was filed on 19th June, 2011
has no value in the eye of law. It is further argued that the informant
has filed the present case against the petitioners only to save himself
from the liability of the Bank dues, and to support their contention, the
petitioners have annexed the judgment dated 29.9.2010 in this
application as Annexure-2.
The counsel for the State opposed but not disputed the
aforesaid contentions made by the counsel for the petitioners.
Considering all these aspects, the petitioners namely
Ramesh Kumar Singh, Smt. Laxmi Singh and Rohit Kumar Singh are
directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of one
month from the date of this order i.e 22.9.2011, and if they so
surrender within the said period, the trial court is directed to release
the petitioners above named on bail, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like
amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court /Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with Mango (Ulidih) P.S.Case
No.243 of 2011, corresponding to G.R.Case No.1261 of 2011, subject
to the conditions that one of the bailors will be their close relative and
another will be of local resident having immovable property within the
jurisdiction of the trial court concerned and subject to the conditions
laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(JAYA ROY, J.)
SI/-