Anticipatory bail denied to petitioner No.1 due to serious allegations; granted to petitioner No.2 based on lack of involvement and age considerations.

ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Godda (T) P.S. Case No.117 of 2021 instituted under Sections 406 , 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code , the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, in criminal conspiracy with each other, have committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that though the petitioners on 13.09.2024 submitted that they are ready and willing to return the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the informant but in fact the petitioner No.1 has taken Rs.1,50,000/- in his bank account but the petitioner No.2, who is the old father of the petitioner No.1, has not taken any money. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security. Hence, it is submitted that at least the petitioner No.2 namely Sadanand Roy be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submit that in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner No.1 namely Rupesh Kumar and the admitted case of the petitioners, that he has taken Rs.1,50,000/-, there is requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner No.1 to recover the cheated amount and the amount which has been dishonestly misappropriated by the petitioner No.1. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner No.1 namely Rupesh Kumar ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

5. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner No.1 namely Rupesh Kumar and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner No.1 namely Rupesh Kumar be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.1 namely Rupesh Kumar is rejected.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above and the age of the petitioner No.2 namely Sadanand Roy and as no amount of money has been entrusted to him, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.2 namely Sadanand Roy. Accordingly, the petitioner No.2 namely Sadanand Roy is directed to surrender in the Court below within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on depositing Rs.10,000/- as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Godda in connection with Godda (T) P.S. Case No.117 of 2021 with the condition that he will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .