Uma Mahato vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The High Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail for the petitioners. The Court considered the serious nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioners, which included criminal breach of trust and forgery by manipulating documents, leading to the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 19,00,000/-. The Court also took into account the State's submission that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was required during the investigation to ascertain the full extent of the forgery and their involvement. Based on these factors, the Court was not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that when serious allegations of financial fraud and forgery are made, and custodial interrogation is deemed necessary for a thorough investigation, anticipatory bail may be denied. The operative direction was the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

Facts

The petitioners, Uma Mahto, Naresh Kumar Mahato, and Anita Mahto, are directors/members of A.M. Enterprises. They approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2024, registered under sections 467/468/471/420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stem from their involvement as vendors/suppliers in Block schemes. It is alleged that A.M. Enterprises received over Rs. 19,00,000/- in the financial year 2023-24 but was banned from schemes due to non-payment of GST and Royalty. The petitioners are accused of providing false vouchers without supplying materials and aiding co-accused Rakesh Kumar Mahto's illegal activities. The petitioners claim they supplied materials, and payments were made via cheque by the beneficiary samiti. They also question the role of Vishal Kumar and point to a delay in FIR lodging, suggesting their implication is due to kinship with Rakesh Kumar Mahto.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 103 of 2024, registered under sections 467/468/471/420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the allegations against them are false, and they had supplied materials to the beneficiary samiti, with payments made through cheques. They contended that Vishal Kumar, a contractual worker, could not be the in-charge of the Block Panchayat Raj Officer. Furthermore, they highlighted a delay of approximately one month in lodging the FIR without any explanation. The petitioners also submitted that they were implicated solely due to their relationship with Rakesh Kumar Mahto, an Accounts Clerk-cum-Computer Operator on a contractual basis. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting direct and specific allegations of criminal breach of trust against the petitioners for allegedly misappropriating Rs. 19,00,000/-. The State emphasized the forgery committed by the petitioners through document manipulation and argued that their custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation to uncover the details of the forgery.