Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21152 (JHR)

Rajesh Ram @ Rajesh Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2026-02-11

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge–II, Khunti vide order dated 21.03.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 88 of 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 is an accused of Khunti P.S. Case No. 19/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party no. 2 filed A.B.P. No. 88 of 2023 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, which was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti considered that the allegations made in the FIR is that though the bus-stand of Khunti was allotted in the name of accused person for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 but the accused person approached the complainant and other investors and offered to invest them in the said business of running the bus stand with lucrative profit. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.7,99,300/- in the office of the Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Khunti by way of demand draft but the accused person had not paid the share in the profit as promised. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further considered that from the documents filed on behalf of the parties, it appears that the complainant was a business partner with the petitioner and the business was to collect the tax from the commercial vehicles from bus stand, Khunti which was lawfully allotted to the petitioner. The complainant and the accused petitioner entered into a partnership by executing a partnership deed in which the share of the complainant was only of 8% of the total investment. There was no allegation that the petitioner played deceptions since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. The dispute between the parties was relating to the business transaction and was of civil nature and on the basis of such discussion, the learned Additional Session Judge-II, Khunti granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the opposite party no.2 herein. 4. The dispute between the parties was relating to the business transaction and was of civil nature and on the basis of such discussion, the learned Additional Session Judge-II, Khunti granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the opposite party no.2 herein. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the petitioner herein was made to deposit Rs.7,99,300/- by opposite party no.2 in the office of Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Khunti by way of cheating and criminal breach of trust and when the petitioner went to the accused person and demanded his money back then the accused person threatened him and misbehaved with him. Hence, it is next submitted that bail granted to the opposite party no.2 of the Cr.M.P., be cancelled. 5. On being asked by the Court as to how many witnesses have been examined by the petitioner who is complainant of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no knowledge about that. Having asked by the Court as to which is the next date fixed before the trial court in Khunti P.S. Case No. 19/2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no information as to whether the case is still pending or has been disposed of. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposed to the prayer and submit that the averments made by the petitioner in the Cr.M.P. would justify that some offence is made out against the O.P. No.2. The undisputed fact remains that the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code are bailable in nature. The offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is having the maximum punishment of imprisonment of 3 years and the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is having the maximum imprisonment for 7 years. The dispute was undisputedly of a civil nature arising out of a dispute regarding rendition of an account of partnership. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in granting anticipatory bail to the O.P. No.2. The dispute was undisputedly of a civil nature arising out of a dispute regarding rendition of an account of partnership. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti in granting anticipatory bail to the O.P. No.2. More so, when there is no allegation against the O.P. No.2 of committing any act or omission which will otherwise make him liable for cancellation of his bail, hence it is submitted that this Cr.M.P being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand& Another passed in Cr. M.P No. 2499 of 2021 vide order dated 01.04.2022 and enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. 8. Now coming to the facts of this case there is no allegation against the petitioner of indulging in any of the activities which will ordinarily made him liable for cancellation of bail. The undisputed fact remains that a maximum sentence involved in the offences involved in this case is for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which is 7 years. The undisputed fact remains that the dispute between the parties is regarding sharing of the profit of the partnership business. There was no allegation against the O.P. No.2 of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. The undisputed fact remains that the dispute between the parties is regarding sharing of the profit of the partnership business. There was no allegation against the O.P. No.2 of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more so, when the petitioner himself is not aware whether the case concerned is still pending or has been disposed of. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.