2020 (7) TMI 828 - HC - Indian Laws

Removal of defect in bail application - seeking hearing of bail application as it is a regular bail in which petitioners are in custody since 07.03.2020 (after removal of defects by petitioner) - HELD THAT - It appears that the money transaction of Rs.53,60,000/- between the month of April, 2018 to November, 2019 in the bank account has been admitted by the petitioners. The petitioners are now ready and willing to deposit the said amount before the learned trial court. It appears that the informant has also filed a Civil Suit No.118 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla for specific performance of contract but the agreement is not admitted by the petitioners, as such, this Court directs the petitioners named above to be released on provisional bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in connection with Balidih P.S. Case No.206 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No.376 of 2020 on the conditions imposed. Bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application defects during lockdown, forged agreement leading to criminal case, arrest without following Cr.P.C. provisions, dispute over money transaction, Civil Suit for specific performance, opposition to bail, appearance assurance, compliance with Covid-19 guidelines.

Bail Application Defects During Lockdown:
The petitioners sought regular bail despite defects in the application, with an undertaking to rectify post-lockdown. The Court agreed to hear the application on merit post-lockdown, directing compliance after lockdown.

Forged Agreement Leading to Criminal Case:
The petitioners faced charges under Sections 406, 420, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code due to a forged agreement. They denied the signature's authenticity and highlighted the failed sale leading to the criminal case.

Arrest Without Following Cr.P.C. Provisions:
The petitioners argued their arrest by Bokaro Police lacked adherence to Cr.P.C. Section 41A, emphasizing their readiness to deposit Rs.53,60,000 for provisional bail to contest the Civil Suit and criminal case.

Dispute Over Money Transaction:
The petitioners admitted the Rs.53,60,000 transaction but disputed the agreement's authenticity. The Court directed them to deposit the amount before the trial court, considering the Civil Suit filed by the informant.

Civil Suit for Specific Performance:
The informant filed Civil Suit No.118 of 2019 for specific performance of contract, countered by the petitioners' denial of the agreement. The Court granted provisional bail with specific conditions to resolve the dispute.

Opposition to Bail and Appearance Assurance:
The State and informant opposed bail, citing risks of absconding due to a significant amount involved in the fraud. The Court granted bail with stringent conditions to ensure appearance and compliance.

Compliance with Covid-19 Guidelines:
The Court mandated compliance with Covid-19 guidelines, directing medical check-ups and quarantine if necessary upon release. Failure to meet conditions within 60 days would lead to cancellation of bail bonds and custody.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of the bail application defects, forged agreement leading to criminal case, arrest procedure, money transaction dispute, Civil Suit, opposition to bail, appearance assurance, and Covid-19 guideline compliance addressed in the judgment delivered by the High Court.