Facts of the Case

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

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

According to the allegations recorded in the order, petitioner Beni Madhaw Jha, in connivance with other co-accused persons, entered into a development agreement dated 20.11.2015 concerning the same lands 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 also threatened the complainant with dire consequences when demands were made concerning the withheld security deposit amount as well as the GST amount allegedly payable by them.

Thus, the dispute before the Court arose in the background of a land development arrangement, alleged non-payment of outstanding dues, withholding of security deposit and GST amounts, and allegations of threats.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 506/34 IPC.
  2. Whether the allegations against the petitioners, particularly in the background of a development agreement and settlement of accounts, justified custodial arrest.
  3. Whether the dispute concerning outstanding dues, security deposit and GST amount had a contractual or accounting dimension relevant to the consideration of anticipatory bail.
  4. Whether petitioner Hema Jha’s alleged connection with the case merely because some consideration amount was deposited in a joint account with her husband was sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
  5. Whether the petitioners’ claim of having no criminal antecedents and their undertaking to cooperate with the investigation supported the grant of anticipatory bail.

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 principally centred around co-accused Jitendra Singh, who, according to the petitioners, had committed the alleged criminal breach of trust.

With respect to petitioner Hema Jha, it was specifically submitted that she was the wife of Beni Madhaw Jha and had been falsely implicated merely 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.

A further significant argument was that the GST amount was the liability of the builder and not that of the petitioners.

The petitioners also contended that the dispute essentially concerned settlement of accounts between the parties and could be resolved through mutual discussions.

It was argued that, in the circumstances of the case, offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not attracted.

The petitioners further submitted that they had no criminal antecedents and expressly undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

On these grounds, they sought 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 demonstrating their involvement in the alleged offences.

Accordingly, the respondents contended that the petitioners should not be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court considered:

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

After considering these factors, the Court held that it was inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

The Court further directed 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, with 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.

Conditions Imposed by the High Court

The grant of anticipatory bail was made subject to specific conditions:

  1. The petitioners must cooperate with the investigation of the case.
  2. They must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed.
  3. They must furnish their mobile numbers.
  4. They must furnish photocopies of their Aadhaar Cards.
  5. They must provide an undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case.
  6. The anticipatory bail would remain subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Important Clarification

The order is significant because the High Court granted anticipatory bail after considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations and the materials available on record. However, the order should not be read as a final adjudication that the dispute was purely civil, that the GST amount was conclusively payable only by the builder, or that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were definitively not made out.

Those propositions were advanced as part of the petitioners’ arguments. The Court’s operative finding was that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the materials available on record, the petitioners deserved the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Similarly, the Court did not finally determine the contractual liability for the GST amount, the security deposit, or the outstanding dues. The order was passed at the anticipatory bail stage and not after a full trial on the merits of the allegations.

Sections Involved

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for criminal breach of trust.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for criminal intimidation.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Conditions that may be imposed while granting anticipatory bail.

 Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783415589_1417compressed.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.