Jharkhand High Court
Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2025
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2024
--------
1. Hemant Kumar @ Hemant Saw, aged about 37 years, son of
Arvind Kumar, resident of Behind Kumar Talkies, Bera, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhansar, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
2. Rekha Saha, aged about 46 years, wife of Kunj Bihari Saw,
resident of Lindsay Club, Near Hari Mandir, Sahulane, Hirapur,
P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
… … Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anil Kumar Hazra son of Late Ram Kumar Hazra, resident of
Vill. Ram Kamal niwas, R.B. Lane, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad. …… Respondents
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
——–
For the Appellants : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP
--------
th
Order No. 05/ Dated: 12 March, 2025
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned
APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated
26.09.2024 passed by the learned A.D.J-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST
Dhanbad in M.C.A. No.2463 of 2024, by which the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the appellants have been rejected in connection
with Complaint Case No.1460 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case
No.226 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC
and under Sections 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. It appears from the record that despite proper service of notice
to the complainant respondent No.2, no-one has entered into the
appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent No.2.
4. It appears from the previous order dated 19.02.2025 that one
more opportunity was granted to the respondent No.2 to appear in this
case but no-one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that no criminal
offence is made out against these appellants in view of the fact that the
entire allegations as alleged in the complaint petition was of civil in
nature where transaction of loan amount by keeping the gold as a
security is involved and the main culprit, if any, i.e. Kunj Bihar Saw
who has admittedly died on 15.11.2023. The allegations as set out in
the complaint petition is that the complainant had given the gold about
99.97 grams to the deceased co-accused Kunj Bihari Saw on
14.05.2013 as a security in lieu of a sum of Rs.1.35 lacs and there was
an agreement to return the amount with interest and then in turn the
deceased co-accused Kunj Bihari Saw was supposed to return the gold
which was hypothecated by the complainant to him but the co-accused
Kunj Bihari Saw did not return the said deposited Gold despite the
return of Rs.3.31 Lakhs by the complainant to respondent No.2.
6. Further it has also been alleged that the complainant respondent
No.2 had returned a sum of Rs.3.31 lacs along with interest to the co-
accused person but even thereafter the gold was not returned to the
complainant by the accused persons and therefore, the complaint case
was instituted but the real culprit if any Kunj Bihari Saw died and
these appellants being employee (staff) and wife of main culprit Kunj
Bihari Saw cannot be held liable for criminal offence.
7. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact, it is argued on behalf of
the appellants that there is monetary transactions between the parties
and if any it is a civil liabilities and no criminal offence is made out
and therefore, the entire allegations are false and fabricated. Further, it
has also been pointed out that the real person with whom the
complainant respondent No.2 had entered into the monetary loan
transaction by depositing the gold had died and hence no offence
either under Section 420, 406, 323, 324 read with Section 34 and
Sections 3(i) x of the SC/ST (POA) Act is substantiated against the
present accused appellants who are employee and wife of the main
culprit (since deceased) Kunj Bihar Saw and therefore reliance has
been placed on behalf of the appellants in the case of “Hitesh Verma
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another“, (2020) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 710 and therefore, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2024
has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that apart from the
cheating and assault, the accused persons who are the appellants
before this Court have also used abusive languages by taking the name
of the caste in order to commit the offence under Section 3(i) x of
SC/ST Act and therefore the appellants do not deserve to get
anticipatory bail.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of this case.
10. In view of the aforesaid persuasive submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellants, it is found just and fair to enlarge the
appellants on bail in anticipation of their arrests or surrender.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2024 passed in MCA No.
2463 of 2024 in connection with Complaint Case No.1460 of 2017
corresponding to SC/ST Case No.226 of 2018, is hereby quashed and
set aside.
12. In view thereof, the instant appeal stands allowed.
13. In consequence thereof, the appellants named above are
directed to be released on bail in apprehension of their arrests or
surrender within three weeks from today on furnishing of bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J-I-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST Dhanbad in connection with Complaint Case
No.1460 of 2017 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.226 of 2018
subject to the condition that the appellants will cooperate in the
investigation as well as in the criminal proceeding pending in the
learned Trial Court, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed
by the learned trial Court for the cancellation of bail as per the
provisions of law.
14. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant/S.Das
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 756 of 2024
