2025:JHHC:38741 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.617 of 2025 …. Sonu Kumar, aged 31 years, S/o Sahdeo Mahto, R/o Thakurnahan, P.O. & P.S.Poraiyahat, Dist. Godda ……Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Lilmuni Tudu 57 years, W/o Late Phagu Murmu, R/o Salaiya, P.O. & P.S. Poraiyahat, Dist. Godda ……Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.PP For the Resp. No.2 : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Datri, Advocate …… CAV Judgement Pronounced on 19th December 2025 1. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by Sri Pawan Kumar, learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Godda by which the prayer of bail of the appellant has been rejected for the offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 351, 351(2) & 3(5) of BNSS 2023 and Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act in connection with Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.07/2025. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant Lilmuni Tudu, has alleged that as per order passed in MACC No.129/2020 dated 06.04.2024, the United Insurance Company Ltd. had deposited Rs.14,90,290/- in the account no.84065187170 of the informant at Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Poraiyahat through Cheque No.CLE/231542 B dated 15.10.2024. The informant is an illiterate lady and taking her into confidence the appellant Sonu Kumar along with his associate, on the assurance of 2025:JHHC:38741 2 withdrawing money from her bank, demanded her original passbook, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, mobile number etc. and she gave the same to them and they kept it and said that the same will be returned after updating but after lapse of one month when they did not return her original passbook, Aadhar Card and PAN card, then she went to bank with her acquaintance Sriram Murmu where the Bank Employee told her that she has withdrawn all the money through Mobile Networking and balance amount of Rs.296/- is available in her account. Thereafter, she received duplicate passbook by updating on 06.12.2024, over which only Rs.296/- was mentioned as balance amount. Thereupon, when she met with the appellant Sonu Kumar and demanded her original Passbook, Aadhar Card, PAN Card and amount in question, he started abusing her by denoting the caste name and threatened to kill her and her children. It is further alleged that the accused/appellant Sonu Kumar with his associate along with Bank Manager and Employees under hatching conspiracy had embezzled amount of Rs.2,50,000/- dated 24.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- dated 25.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- dated 26.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- dated 27.10.2024, Rs.40,000/- dated 28.10.2024, Rs.5,00,000/- dated 30.10.2024 and Rs.1,00,000/- dated 31.10.2024 by deceiving her. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P and the learned counsel for the Informant-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 eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence suggesting that the appellant was involved in embezzlement or fraudulently misused the documents or bank account of the informant. It is submitted that the offences 2025:JHHC:38741 3 alleged are based on electronic fund transfers and there is no clear evidence at this stage to establish that the appellant personally accessed the account or transferred the funds using any fraudulent means. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 316(2) and 316(5) of the BNS are not attracted, as the appellant is neither a public servant, banker, nor an agent and there is no prima facie evidence of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 07.05.2025 and hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P has opposed the prayer of the appellant. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the Informant is a widow and an illiterate lady. It is submitted that statement of Informant/Victim at Para-4 and Informant’s brother-in-law at para-5 and 6 of the case diary, have fully supported the prosecution case and stated that the appellant has committed fraud upon the informant by taking her original Bank Passbook, Aadhar Card, PAN Card etc. and had withdrew huge amount approx. Rs.14,90,000/- from the bank account of the widow-informant through the mobile networking system. It is further submitted that the money of the Informant has been transferred to the wife of the appellant also and hence the prayer of the bail of the appellant may be rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submissions of learned Spl.P.P, has further submitted that the appellant had cheated and withdrawn Rs.14,90,000/- from the bank account of the Informant. It is submitted that the Informant during her subsequent statement at paragraph 4 of the case diary has 2025:JHHC:38741 4 supported the case that the appellant had withdrawn Rs.2,50,000/- on 24.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.10.2024, Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.10.2024, Rs.40,000/- on 28.10.2024, Rs.5,00,000/- on 30.10.2024 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 31.10.2024 from her bank account and the appellant namely Sonu Kumar and his father and Bank Officials were in collusion. It is further submitted that the witnesses namely Tilka Murmu, Sriram Murmu, whose statement at paragraph 5 and 6 of the case diary have also supported the case of the Informant for cheating her of approx. Rs.14,90,000/- and who is Bhabhi (sister-in-law) and the elder brother of the husband of the Informant. It is submitted that the witnesses namely Bhramdeo Ray and Sarita Murmu, whose statement at paragraph 25-26 of the case diary have also supported the prosecution case that the appellant had cheated the compensation amount of approx. Rs.15,00,000/- from the Informant. It is submitted that details of transactions have been given in paragraph 38, 42, 44, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of the case diary, and which clearly shows that the appellant had cheated Rs.14,90,000/- in different installments on different dates from the bank account of the Informant and hence the prayer of bail of the appellant may be rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perused the records, it appears that the appellant is named in the FIR for cheating the Informant for a sum of Rs.14,90,000/- which she had received in compensation from Civil Courts, Godda on account of death of her husband namely late Fagu Murmu on 18.10.2020. It appears from the para 44 of the case diary that the appellant had got transferred the amount of Rs.3,45,000/- to Laxmi Kumari, who is the wife of the appellant. 2025:JHHC:38741 5 8. It further appears that the Aadhar Card of Informant, the mobile number of appellant has been registered. 9. It further appears from para-191,192 and 193 of the case diary that details of the amount in question has been described how the money had been transferred from the account of the Informant to the bank account of appellant and the bank account of his wife Laxmi Kumari. It appears from the para 191 of the case diary that by utilizing the internet banking [IMPS and NEFT] Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.95,000/- i.e. the total Rs.3,45,000/- was transferred from the bank account of Informant on 24.10.2024 and 31.10.2024 in the bank account of the Laxmi Kumari (i.e. the wife of the appellant). Further, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-. Rs.40,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs.8,40,000/- was transferred on 25.10.2024, 26.10.2024, 27.10.2024, 28.10.2024 and 30.10.2024 from the bank account of the Informant namely Lilmuni Tudu to the bank account of Sonu Kumar by transferring the amount by utilizing IMPS [Internet Banking and NEFT]. Further, 3,00,000/- was transferred in the bank account of Pankaj Kumar Mandal, Advocate, Civil Courts, Godda. 10. It appears that this is a case of cheating of approx. Rs.14,90,000/- from the bank account of the Informant Lilmuni Tudu to the bank account of the appellant and his wife and one Advocate Pankaj Kumar Mandal. 11. It further appears from para-38, 42 and 44 that Rs.8,40,000/- has been transferred to the appellant’s account and Rs.3,45,000/- has been transferred to the bank account of appellant’s wife namely Laxmi Kumari. 12. It is further appears that the appellant is a man of criminal antecedent having two more cases against him. However, the 2025:JHHC:38741 6 appellant has concealed the fact of having two criminal antecedent in this case instant criminal appeal which amounts to suppression of fact by the appellant. 13. It appears that the appellant is in custody since 07.05.2025 14. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant is, hereby, rejected. 15. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed in Misc. Crl. Appl. No.538 of 2025 arising out of Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.07/2025 by Sri Pawan Kumar, learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Godda is hereby affirmed. 16. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 617 of 2025 is dismissed. 17. The Jharkhand State Bar council is also directed to enquire about the conduct of the Pankaj Kumar Mandal, Advocate, Civil Courts, Godda and enquire about taking approx. 3,00,000/- (Rs.Three lakhs) from the Informant in this case by way of cheque from the bank account of the Informant without informing her as it appear to be connivance of the appellant and the counsel Pankaj Kumar Mandal. The Jharkhand State Bar Council shall enquire into the matter and shall submit its report within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt the copy of this order to this Court and also to the learned Trial Court below. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Godda and also to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated 19.12.2025 Nishant/-