Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 682 of 2024 --------- Ranjan Raj Gupta ..… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Monica Bara ….. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Adv. For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Deo, Advocate ---------- 10/23.06.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 25.06.2024, passed in A.B.P. No. 365 of 2024, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra, by which prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the appellant, namely Ranjan Raj Gupta has been rejected in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.62 of 2022, instituted for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3/ 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra. 2. As per the F.I.R. arising out of Complaint Case No. 816 of 2020 filed before the C.J.M., Chatra, the Informant has alleged that the appellant was employed as Manager in her petrol pump, i.e. Ma Tara Fuels on 02.06.2014 and the appellant promised to work with honesty, however after some time, the appellant started taking advantage of his position by filling and depositing the cheques given by the customers in lieu of purchase of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 2 diesel and petrol, in his name and in the name of his family members. Thereafter, suddenly the appellant left the Petrol Pump on 10.03.2019 with papers and also by tampering with entries in the Computer, due to which petrol pump of the Informant got closed and there was no amount left in the account of the Ma Tara Fuels and the Informant was not in a position to take supply of diesel or petrol due to fund crisis. It is alleged that on examination, the Informant found that the appellant has defalcated an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five lakh) from the petrol pump. It is also alleged that when the complainant threatened the appellant for instituting a case against him in the year 2020, he even admitted for giving a sum of Rs.23,00,000/- (Twenty three lakh) as loan from the petrol pump. The complainant also learnt from the perusal of papers that the appellant had got the money transferred in the account of his wife Puja Gupta and also in the account of his father and mother namely Budhan Prasad Gupta and Deepa Devi respectively and another person, namely Ranjit Kr. Gupta. It is further alleged that the appellant has abused her and her husband in the name of her caste several times and also in the public places. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 3 It is submitted that the Informant has falsely implicated the appellant through a complaint, which gave rise to the F.I.R. in the year 2022 for the occurrence taking place during the period from the year 2014 to 2019, i.e. after a delay of Three years. It is submitted that the appellant has joined in the petrol pump on 26.04.2014 and left on 10.03.2019, but the Complainant Case was filed in the year 2020 and F.I.R. was lodged on 14.03.2022. Therefore, there is gross delay of Three years in lodging the F.I.R. It is submitted that the appellant has never abused the Informant in the name of her caste as there is no evidence that the such incident occurred in public view and the appellant has never promised to return Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty three lakh) to the Informant. It is submitted that he has not defalcated Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy five lakh) from the Petrol pump and the Informant has not given any documentary proof in support of her allegations, which are entirely based on surmises and hence, the appellant may be granted Anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the appellant had cheated the complainant of several lacs of Rupees and he admitted to return Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand), however he refused to return the said money. It is submitted that Para 71 of the Case Diary reveals the entire details of Bank transactions through which the deduction of the amount of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- took place from the accounts of the concerned persons, which Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 4 supports the prosecution case against the appellant. It is also submitted that Para 4 of the Case Diary reveals that the Informant during her subsequent statement has supported the prosecution case and from Para 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Case Diary, it appears that all the witnesses, namely Anand Kumar Bhagat, Tunna Oraon, Subba Ansari and Manoj Oraon have supported the prosecution case and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the arguments of the learned A.P.P., has submitted that the appellant has admitted for returning Rs. 23,23,759/-(Rupees Twenty three lakh twenty three thousand seven hundred fifty nine), but he failed to do so. It is submitted that the appellant used to obtain blank cheques from the customers to get the said amount credited in his account and the accounts of his relatives and this fact is proved from the photocopy of the cheques given by the appellant to the Informant and from which it appears that cheques given by one Paulus Oraon, Rajiv Kr. Singh and Vinod Kr. Gupta were deposited in the Bank accounts of the appellant and two other persons. It is submitted that when Informant, along with her husband, investigated all the accounts and sales of the pump during the tenure of the appellant it was found that the appellant defalcated about Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five lakh) from the said petrol pump. It is submitted that further when the husband of the Informant found the appellant and asked him to return the money, then the appellant handed over Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 5 some documents of the Car and Lands along with some photocopies of the cheques and said that he would return the money by selling those lands and cars. The appellant was also confronted about the money he took from the petrol pump and said that he used the money in his name and in the name of his five family members namely (1) Puja Gupta, (2) Budhan Prasad Gupta, (3) Deepa Devi, (4) Ranjeet Kumar Gupta, (5) Savita Gupta. It is further submitted that the appellant gave the Informant a list of people who took petrol-diesel on credit of around Rs. 23,23,759/-(Rupees Twenty three lakh twenty three thousand seven hundred fifty nine) and also wrote on it that he will collect the due amount and deposit the same in the account of the petrol pump and the rest of the money he used in cash will be returned by him, the appellant and his father made signature on the list which he gave and promised to collect the dues. Photocopies of the documents in support of the above contention of the Informant have been enclosed as Annexure A and B to the counter affidavit and hence, prayer for Anticipatory bail made on behalf of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R., the Case Diary and Records of this case and considered the submission of both sides. 8. It appears that though the complaint case was filed after delay of one year, but it is a case in which the appellant was employed as a Manager in the Petrol Pump in good faith and he betrayed and breached the trust of the Owner by defalcating a huge amount. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 6 9. It has been stated in the complaint petition that due to Covid-19 pandemic there is delay in filing the complaint petition. 10. It appears that the Informant had filed the complaint case in the year 2020 on 31.08.2020 and the F.I.R. was lodged by the police on 14.03.2022, i.e. after a delay of Two (02) years and hence, there cannot be delay on the part of the Informant. 11. It appears that several witnesses, namely Monica Bara, i.e. the Informant, Anand Kumar Bhagat, Tunna Oraon, Subba Ansari and Manoj Oraon, whose statements are recorded in Paragraph 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the Case Diary, have supported the prosecution case. 12. From perusal of the Bank Statement and from perusal of the Para 71 of the Case Diary, it appears that the appellant have credited a huge money in his name as well as in the name of his family members. 13. Para 63, Para 66, para 67 and Para 68 of the Case Diary supports the prosecution case in detail and from Para 71 of the Case Diary, it reveals that the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- of the customers, namely Rajiv Kumar Singh, Vinod Kr. Gupta and Paulus Oraon respectively, have been deposited in different bank accounts. 14. Para 73 of the Case Diary reveals the statement of one Paulus Oraon, who stated that he used to take fuel from the petrol pump of the Informant and had given the cheque of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant in Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:26793 ) 7 good faith but he failed to mention the name of the said petrol pump as he was in a hurry and this cheque was credited by the appellant in his Bank Account. 15. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant and hence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant is rejected. 16. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 682 of 2024 is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m.