Advocates:
['UJJAL CHOUDHARY', '', 'APARAJITA MALLICK', 'ASHISH AMAN', 'ASHUTOSH ANAND', '', 'JASVINDAR MAZUMDAR', 'VIKAS KUMAR', 'SRIKANT SWAROOP', 'SAMEER RANJAN', 'VIKRAM SINGH']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No.9109 of 2021

------

1. Manish Varma

2. Man Mohan Varma

....

....

….

Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

....

....

....Opposite Party

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Vimal Kriti Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ujjal Choudhary, Advocate

Mr. Shishir Raj, Adv.

For the State

: Mr. Aashutosh Anand, AAG-III

For the Informant

: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.

------

Order No.08 Dated- 25.04.2022

Heard the parties.

Apprehending their arrest in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.

106 of 2021 instituted under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of

anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation

against the petitioners is that though the petitioner no.1 resigned from the post

of director of the company on 06.03.2017 and was not authorized to do

transactions on behalf of company namely M/s Pre-Stressed Udyog (India) Pvt.

Ltd., he impersonated himself as a director of the company and withdrew

Rs.13.75 lakhs on 31.03.2017 through cheque from New Delhi Branch of Indian

Overseas Bank and thereby committed cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that though the petitioner no.2

resigned from the post of director of the company on 02.05.2017, he by

impersonating himself as a director of the company and upon showing

incorrect address of the company registered a power of attorney being P.O.A.

IV-537 in his favour in the registry office Dhanbad. It has further been alleged

that the power of attorney holder of the petitioner no.2 has used the said illegal

power of attorney to sell various properties registered in the name of the

company, located at Mouza Saraidhella, Mouza No.8, District-Dhanbad, by

means of various sale deeds including sale deeds bearing No.2175 dated

20.05.2020 registered at Dhanbad. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that so far the allegation against the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the

said allegation is mentioned in paragraph of 47 of the case diary, recorded

during course of investigation of FIR being Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019,

wherein the date of receipt of Supervision Report, wherein there is reference of

the said allegation, has been mentioned as 05.07.2020. It is then submitted that

the allegation against the petitioner no.1 was already the subject matter of

investigation of Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 before lodging of this First

Information Report, of this case. It is next submitted that in paragraph 37 of the

case diary, the allegation against the petitioner no.1 has also been mentioned to

the effect that the investigation in respect of the same is also going on and the

said entry was made on 14.03.2020 and subsequently, the informant knowing

pretty well that the allegations in this case are of consequential nature of the

main offences for which the F.IR. vide Bank More P.S. Case No.338 of 2019 has

already been registered, only in order to harass the petitioners, instituted a

separate case by lodging the First Information Report of this case. It is

submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false and the dispute

between the parties is basically a civil dispute. Learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and Anr., reported in (2013) 6

SCC 348, para 37 and 38 of which read as under:

<37. This Court has consistently laid down the law on the issue interpreting the

Code, that a second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the

course of the same transaction is not