SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gopal Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 5730 of 2018
1. Gopal Choudhary
2. Shivlal Chaudhary …… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party

———

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH

———

For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State :A.P.P
……………

C.A.V on : 05/12/2018 Pronounced on:07/12/2018
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dandai

P.S. Case No. 85 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 1261 of 2017 for the offence

under sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on the basis of

written report of informant-Block Development Officer, Dandai, Garhwa

addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Dandai P.S including enquiry report of the

DD.C., Gahrwa alleging therein that in Danda and Dandai block for

construction of Micro lift irrigation scheme Micro Lift Sel-Help Group was

constituted for the financial year, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 under SGSY

loan was given to 55 groups by the S.B.I, Agriculture Branch , Garhwa. It was

found that total amount of Rs, 4,97,800.00 Rs, 2,48,900.00 was loan and Rs,

2,48,900.00 was as subsidy for which one 20′ of well, o1 water tower, o1 pump

house, o1 diesel pump, pipe line 1200 ft was to be constructed and 04 Vat, 27

kiyari, detailed description is given in the written report. But the aforesaid

scheme was not completed and subsidy was withdrawn. It appears that

petitioners are middle men and they have misappropriated amounts of the

beneficiaries after obtaining signature on blank paper and with support of bank

official they have withdrawn money. On the basis of these and another

allegations, the instant case has been instituted.

2

Learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the bail application of

the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have

committed no offence. Further, it has been submitted that the alleged occurrence

appears to have been committed in between 2009 to 2011 but the F.I.R was

lodged after long delay. Further, it has been submitted that there is no provision

of appointment of any middlemen in the micro lift irrigation project under

S.G.SY, Programme. Further, it has been submitted that petitioners were never

office bearers of any self-group who had engaged in micro lift irrigation project

under the S.G.S.Y scheme and they have got no concern with the execution of any

work or withdrawal of any amount because no check with respect to even a

single rupee was ever issued in favour of the petitioners which they have cheated

or misused as such neither section 420 I.P.C is made out nor section 406 I.P.C is

made out against the. Further, it has been submitted that it was not clear how the

name of two persons have been left out. It has been submitted that in self group

there will be maximum of five persons but the petitioners are not members of

any self group of Dandai Block. So, considering the aforesaid facts, the

petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Case diary was called for which has been received. From perusal of case

diary, it appears that in para 05, I.O has recoded the statement of witness Mukhi

Choudhary who has named these petitioners and has submitted that the were

member of Bhagwan Lift Irrigation Self Help Group, and the petitioners

obtained signature on the blank paper from the beneficiaries and withdraw

money amounting to Rs. 5 lac out of which Rs, 2 lac has been returned. . Similar

is the statement of witness S.Kumar Choudhary, in para 7-witness Lakhan

Choudhary and in para 8-witness Chutar Choudhary.

Further, it appears that petitioners have criminal antecedent and they are
3

also accused in Danda P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017.

Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case also considering the

fact that petitioners have criminal antecedent, allegation against the petitioners is

very serious, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Satyarthi/- (Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation