RANCHI, India, May 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 28:

1. Heard the parties.

2. These anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 and 440 Cr.P.C. and under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, have been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences registered under Sections

3. The allegation against these petitioners is that they are the Directors of the Company in which the informant has given loan. It is further alleged that as the loan amount was not liquidated, one of the partners namely Rahul Kumar executed a power of attorney in respect of some of the lands but it came to light that those lands were already sold by someone else under a power of attorney executed by Rahul Kumar, earlier.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that it is absolutely a business transaction which has been given a colour of criminal case. He further submits that the power of attorney which has been executed by Rahul Kumar, does not even whisper that in lieu of the loan given, the power of attorney is being executed.

5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. He further submits that there is another criminal case against the petitioners being Saraidhela P.S. Case No.273 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 34 IPC. He submits that in that case charge sheet has also been submitted. On query, he is not in a position to say what are the facts of that particular case.

6. Learned counsel representing the informant submits that the informant time to time had given loan to the Company. The Company failed to repay the same, for which Rahul Kumar executed a power of attorney in favour of the informant involving some lands in question and it was the understanding that the informant will sell those land by virtue of the said power of attorney and will appropriate the money and adjust the same in lieu of the loan which has been given to the Company. He further submits that after the power of attorney was executed, it came to the knowledge of the informant that twelve days earlier, Rahul Kumar had already executed a power of attorney, based upon which the lands were sold. Thus, the informant had been cheated.

7. After hearing the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that the informant has admittedly given loan to the Company and there is a power of attorney executed by Rahul Kumar. In the said power of attorney there is no whisper that a power has been given to the informant to appropriate the sale proceeds in lieu of the loan. There is no document or agreement to that effect also. Thus, in my opinion, these are the fit cases to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, these Anticipatory Bail Applications stand allowed. The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.318 of 2023, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.