Md. Majlu Ansari @ Md. Majlum Ansari @ Majlum Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the State For the informant : Mr. A.K. Sahani ,Adv. : Mr. V.S. Sahay ,Addl. P.P. : Ms. Shamma Parveen, Adv. 02 / 21.01.2022 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after resumption of the court in physical mode. In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Dhanwar (Parsan O.P.) P.S. Case No. 175 of 2021registered under Sections 120B, 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that the informant purchased one Hywa Tipper Tata L.P. jointly and was running the same under partnership with the petitioner since 02.03.2017 and accordingly at the instruction of the petitioner, the informant deposited installment amounts of vehicle in the account of the nephew of the petitioner and several installments were deposited in the account of the relatives of the petitioner and he has been paying money for servicing and maintenance of the vehicle of the informant and altogether, deposited 31 installment worth Rs.

19,53,000/-, insurance of Rs. 1,62,000/-, tax Rs. 96,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- against the fitness of the vehicle. It is further alleged that the informant paid Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner at the time of taking custody of the said vehicle and when the informant asked the petitioner and other co- accused persons for wages regarding his service, the petitioner and the co-accused persons have dishonestly, removed the said vehicle from the possession of the informant without his consent in order to grab money worth Rs. 8,80,000/-. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and those allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant failed to pay installments and a sum of Rs. 5,44,507/- fell due and in order to recover the dues, the vehicle was sold by the finance company to the co-accused within the knowledge of the informant and the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the co- accused Md.

Waris. It next submitted that on 24.07.2016, as per the partnership agreement dated 07.03.2012, a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- was paid by the informant and the balance amount was paid by the finance company for purchase of the said vehicle. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent he is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case and recovery of the cheated amount. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. Smita/-

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)