Anup Kumar Karmkar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC, which are offences triable by a magistrate. Considering the petitioner had been in custody for over eight months and the nature of the offences, the Court found it inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. Additionally, the petitioner was required to submit a self-attested copy of his Aadhaar Card and provide his mobile number, which he was not to change without prior court permission during the pendency of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Anup Kumar Karmkar, sought regular bail in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner had been in custody since January 9, 2024. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating it was an accounting dispute between employer and employee, and that he had served the employer for over 10 years. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging that over 2 crores had been siphoned, with evidence of investment in property renovation and land purchase. They also mentioned manipulation of GST and misappropriation of government funds, and that the matter was investigated by the CID.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail considering he has been in custody for over eight months and the case is triable by a magistrate, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the allegations of siphoning over 2 crores, investment in property, and manipulation of GST, as argued by the State and informant, warrant denial of bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting the case involved an accounting dispute between an employer and employee, not criminal misappropriation. He highlighted that he had served the employer for over 10 years and had been in custody for more than eight months. Furthermore, he contended that the offences were triable by a magistrate, supporting his prayer for bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and informant opposed bail, presenting evidence suggesting the petitioner had siphoned over 2 crores. They claimed the money was invested in renovating his house and purchasing land. They also alleged manipulation of GST and misappropriation of government funds, noting that the investigation had been handed over to the CID.