Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Beni Madhaw Jha and Hema Jha, approached the High Court of Jharkhand apprehending arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 193 of 2022, arising from Complaint Petition No. 3104 of 2022, instituted under Sections 406, 420, 467, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Since both anticipatory bail applications arose from the same FIR, the High Court heard them together.

According to the factual allegations recorded in the order, petitioner Beni Madhaw Jha, in connivance with other co-accused persons, entered into a development agreement dated 20 November 2015 concerning the same land situated under Mouza Dhaiya No. 6, Khata Nos. 6 and 196, Plot No. 4334.

It was further alleged that the accused persons were not paying the outstanding dues of the complainant and had threatened him with dire consequences when payment was demanded. The allegations also referred to withholding the security deposit amount as well as the GST amount stated to be payable by them.

 

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the anticipatory bail proceedings were:

  1. Whether, considering the allegations under Sections 406, 420, 467, 506/34 IPC and the material available on record, the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail.
  2. Whether the dispute was essentially connected with settlement of accounts between the parties, as argued by the petitioners.
  3. Whether offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were attracted in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the petitioners’ contention that the dispute concerned accounts and contractual dealings.
  4. Whether petitioner Hema Jha had been implicated merely because a part of the consideration money was deposited in a joint bank account held with her husband, despite her alleged non-participation in contractual transactions.
  5. Whether the GST amount in dispute constituted the liability of the builder rather than that of the petitioners, as specifically argued on behalf of the petitioners.
  6. Whether the nature of allegations and the materials available on record justified custodial arrest or whether the petitioners could be protected through anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and had committed no offence as alleged in the offence report.

It was argued that the allegations were primarily centred around co-accused Jitendra Singh, who, according to the petitioners’ submission, had committed the alleged criminal breach of trust.

With regard to petitioner Hema Jha, it was specifically submitted that she was the wife of Beni Madhaw Jha and had been falsely implicated only because some amount of consideration money had been deposited in her joint account with her husband.

The petitioners contended that Hema Jha had not entered into any contractual transaction.

It was further submitted that the GST amount was the liability of the builder and not of the petitioners.

The petitioners also argued that there was a dispute concerning settlement of accounts between the parties, which could be resolved through mutual discussions, and that no offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was attracted in the case.

It was further pointed out that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents.

The petitioners undertook to cooperate with the investigation and accordingly prayed for the privilege of anticipatory bail.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the informant, opposed the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that sufficient material had been collected against the petitioners showing their involvement in the alleged offence.

On that basis, the respondents argued that the petitioners should not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

 

Court Order / Findings

After considering:

  • the facts and circumstances of the case;
  • the nature of the allegations against the petitioners; and
  • the materials available on record,

the High Court held that it was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to surrender before the Court within four weeks from the date of the order.

The Court further ordered that, in the event of their arrest or surrender, the petitioners would be enlarged on bail upon furnishing:

  • a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 each; and
  • two sureties of the like amount each,

to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 193 of 2022, arising from Complaint Petition No. 3104 of 2022.

The grant of anticipatory bail was subject to specific conditions requiring the petitioners to:

  • cooperate with the investigation;
  • appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed;
  • furnish their mobile numbers;
  • furnish photocopies of their Aadhaar Cards;
  • give an undertaking that they would not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case; and
  • comply with the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) CrPC.

 

Important Clarification

The High Court’s order must be understood specifically as an anticipatory bail order.

The Court did not, in this order, finally adjudicate whether the petitioners were guilty or innocent of the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 506/34 IPC.

Similarly, the order did not finally determine the petitioners’ contention that the dispute was merely one concerning settlement of accounts, nor did it finally decide the submission that the GST amount was the liability of the builder rather than the petitioners.

These were submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners in support of their prayer for anticipatory bail.

The operative judicial finding was that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations against the petitioners, and the materials available on record, the Court was inclined to grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to specified conditions.

Therefore, the order should not be interpreted as a final finding on the merits of the criminal allegations or as a final legal determination of GST liability between the parties.

 

Sections Involved

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 406 – Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust
The criminal case included allegations attracting the offence of criminal breach of trust.

Section 420 – Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property
The proceedings also involved allegations of cheating.

Section 467 – Forgery of Valuable Security, Will, etc.
The FIR was instituted, inter alia, under the provision dealing with serious forms of forgery.

Section 506 – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
The complaint included allegations of threats of dire consequences.

Section 34 – Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention
The allegations were made against the accused persons with reference to common intention.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 438 – Direction for Grant of Bail to Person Apprehending Arrest
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Section 438(2) – Conditions for Anticipatory Bail
The anticipatory bail granted by the Court was expressly made subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) CrPC.

 

Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783408417_1409compressed.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.