The petitioner was taken into custody under Section 419 IPC, “Punishment for cheating by personation”, section 420 “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”, section 406, “Punishment for criminal breach of trust” and section 120B IPC, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”. This is in connection with Town PS Case No. 50 of 2019 dated 24.01.2019.
This judgment was given in the high court of Judicature at Patna by honorable Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on the 5th of August 2021 in the case of Dharam Sah @ Dharm Sah versus the state of Bihar criminal miscellaneous No.19508 of 2021, Mr. Arun Kumar Represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh represented as the additional Public Prosecutor, the proceedings of the court were held via video conference.
The following are the facts of the case, the petitioner made connections between the informant and co-accused and her husband, they had taken Rs. 5 lakhs from the informant for getting a job for the informant’s grandson in the civil court which happened in the presence of the petitioner however the same did not materialize, further the petitioner took the informant to a bank and made her deposit Rs. 49,000 and took the money, the co-accused refused to return the money and instead gave her one card, PAN card, Aadhar, etc and also abused the informant.
According to the counsel for the petitioners, he held that the daughter of the informant was also working as a maid in the co-accused household, the petitioner also resided in the same building, the grandson of the informant was getting married and they had taken jewelry worth Rs. 1,15,912 from the shop owned by the petitioner and some amount is yet to be paid, according to the FIR the money was given to the co-accused and not the petitioner, after investigation the informant’s family has a history of lodging false cases. Therefore, the petitioner is not guilty under the law because the money paid to him was due to the ornaments which he sold in his shop and handed over the required documents regarding the payments to the court as evidence, the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner cannot be held in custody any longer
The Additional Public Prosecutor held that according to the witnesses they have supported the story laid down by the prosecutor however it is not controverted that due to the informant’s grandson‘s marriage they had purchased the gold and the due amount was remaining, and the parties are tenants of a common landlord.
The court after considering the facts and circumstances of this present case held that the petitioner was not the one who promised the job for the informant’s grandson and the documents prove that he was the owner of the jewelry shop and the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail and therefore the Court is inclined to allow the prayer by giving bail for the same.
The court concluded that “the petitioner will be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Town PS Case No. 50 of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-operate shall lead to the cancellation of his bail bonds. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”