( 2025:JHHC:12047 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3172 of 2025 ------ 1. Tanmay Banerjee, aged about 61 years, son of Shri. Late Dilip Banerjee, resident of 166/A, Rai Bahadur Road, P.O. –Behala, Police Station –Behala, District –Kolkata, West Bengal -700034. 2. Shubhmoy Banerjee @ Subhamoy Banerjee @ Subhamy Banerjee, Son of Shri Late Dilip Banerjee, resident of 166/A Rai Bahadur Road, P.O. Behala, Police Station –Behala, District –Kolkata, West Bengal -700034. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bashist Kumar Agarwal, aged about 55 years, son of Saket Bihari Agarwal, resident of House No. 101, Road No. 8, Aditya Garden, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. –Adityapur, District –Seraikella, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Satyen Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. Piyush, Advocate : Mr. Harshit Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 22.04.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioners have moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.206 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 12 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 341, 323, 509, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners with common intention with the co-accused persons have misappropriated money of the informant by committing fraud. It is alleged that the informant transferred Rs.25,01,001/- to the bank account of Bhavika Commercial Private Limited and the petitioners are the directors of Bhavika Commercial Private Limited and the petitioners after receiving the said amount have not supplied the material agreed to be supplied by them nor returned the amount to the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to annexure-4 of the brief which is the copy of the sales promoter agreement; that in page -41 clause 10.1 of the said agreement entails that the informant was to furnish a security deposit of Rs.50,01,001/- but he has paid only Rs.25,01,001/-. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is further submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined during the trial. It is next submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 09.11.2024, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.206 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 12 of 2025 with the condition that the petitioners will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish their mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/