Jawahar Lal Saha Alias Jawahar Lal Sah vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners nos. 2 and 3. The Court observed that the dispute between the parties appeared to stem from a sale transaction of a crusher plant, which was resolved through an agreement allowing the informant to sell vehicles and machines to realize his money. The primary allegation against the petitioners was the theft of 16 motors due to this dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the materials on record, the Court found it appropriate to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. Petitioners nos. 2 and 3 were directed to surrender in court within four weeks and be enlarged on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties of like amount. They were also required to cooperate with the investigation, furnish their mobile numbers and Aadhaar card photocopies, and undertake not to change their mobile numbers during the pendency of the case, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by three petitioners, Jawahar Lal Saha, Manoj Kumar Saha, and Vishwajit Saha, in connection with Ranga P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023. The case was registered under Sections 406, 379, 420, 427, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the application, petitioner no. 1, Jawahar Lal Saha, passed away, rendering his prayer infructuous. Petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are seeking anticipatory bail, alleging false implication. They contend that a prior complaint case filed by petitioner no. 1 was registered as Ranga P.S. Case No. 29 of 2023, but the police proceeded to register the current case against them at the informant's instance. They claim that crucial documents, including GST enclosures, appear to be fake and that the agreement dated 12.08.2022 is manufactured. The dispute reportedly stems from a sale transaction of a crusher plant and mines, where the informant allegedly failed to pay the agreed amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of offences under Sections 406, 379, 420, 427, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argue that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They contend that the FIR was registered without proper investigation and that key documents, including GST enclosures and an agreement, are fabricated. They also highlight a prior complaint case filed by petitioner no. 1 and allege that the current case was lodged to pressurize them. They claim the dispute arose because the informant did not pay the agreed amount for the mines and crusher plant. State's Arguments: The State, assisted by the informant's counsel, opposes the bail application, asserting direct and specific allegations of serious offences against the petitioners. They claim an agreement was executed for the purchase of a crusher plant, but upon inspection, essential documents like CTO and GST were found to be expired. They further allege that the petitioners undertook to return the money but failed to do so and subsequently stopped the informant from taking away vehicles and articles, stealing 16 motors.