Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Ajit Kumar Mishra, sought anticipatory bail in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 268 of 2021, registered under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that the petitioner, as an employee of M/s Inland Ash Products, collected Rs. 22,00,000/- from customers for bricks. The informant is the stockiest of the company. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false, that he was a Senior Manager, Marketing, and had no direct dealings with the informant. He contended that the informant could not produce any evidence of the petitioner instructing him to supply bricks or any transactions between them, and that brick releases required proper invoices and GST bills. The petitioner also asserted that no customers had come forward to allege he took money and that there was no dishonest intention. He characterized the dispute as civil. The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Held

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the submissions made by both counsels and the facts discussed. It was of the opinion that the case was a fit one for granting anticipatory bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's arguments regarding the lack of direct evidence, the civil nature of the dispute, and the absence of allegations of dishonest intention. The Court directed that in the event of his arrest or surrender within six weeks, he would be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties. Conditions were imposed, including cooperation with the investigation, appearance before the Investigating Officer when noticed, furnishing his mobile number and Aadhar Card, and an undertaking not to change his mobile number during the pendency of the case, subject to Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust registered under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. He emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking him to the alleged transactions or dishonest intent, highlighting that the informant, as a stockiest, would have required proper invoices and GST bills for any brick release, which he claimed were not linked to the petitioner. He also pointed out that no customers had come forward to depose against him. The petitioner undertook to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.