In the court of Principal Session

Judge,at Dhanbad
Anticipatory Bail Application No.: /2023.

1.Parmeshwar Singh Choudhary

S/o. – Chinta Mani Singh
Aged about 62 years
Occupation – Business
Having Adhar No.: 9208 0966 2346

2.Anil Singh Choudhary

S/o.- Amin Singh Choudhary
Aged abour – 45 years
Occupation – Business
Having Adhar No.: 3903 1522 1408

3.Anjana Devi
W/o. Lt. Yudhisthir Singh Choudhary
Aged about – 50 years
Occupation - Housewife
Having Adhar No.: 5510 3437 4840

All resident of
Vill.- Kaliadabur, P.O.- Pindrjora,
P.S.- Pindrajora, Dist.- Bokaro – 827013

………………………………Petitioners

Vs.

1|Page
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Morias infrastructure Private Limited
Represent through its Director Ripunjay Prasad
Singh S/o.- Late Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, aged
about – 56 years, by category – General, R/o. –
Pustak Bhawan, Complex, Court Road, P.O., P.S.
& Dist. – Ranchi.
Mob. No.: 8210312601
Adhar No. 4209-5583-2002
……………Respondent

In the matter of an
application u/s. 438 Cr.P.C.

AND

In the matter of bail u/s.

406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120
(b) IPC.

Humble petition on behalf of the petitioners

most respectfully sheweth :-

1.That, on the basis of the written complainant

lodged by complainant a C.P. case no. 2019/19
was registered u/s.406, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120(b) IPC against twelve accused persons
named in the complaint petition.

2|Page
2.That, the no regular bail application on
behalf of the petitioner was earlier filed
before learned court below or before your
honor’s court nor any Anticipatory bail was
filed on behalf of the petitioners neither
before your honors court nor Hon’ble H.C,
Jharkhad, Ranchi.

3.That, no process u/s. 82 and 83 Cr.P.C were

issued against the present petitioners.

4.That, It was alleged in the complaint

petition that the complainant is a private
limited company carrying on business of
development and construction of building and
in the month of May 2014. accused namely
Prakash Singh Choudhary met with the
complainant and requested for development ad
construction of multistoried-building belongs
to accused persons measuring the area of 07
kattha 6 chhatak in respect of plot no. 2975
Municipal survey no. 2/2739, Municipal
Holding No. 98, new Holding no. 115 Situated
at Mouza No. 7, ward no. 128 within P.s.
Dhanbad and complainant agrees to construct
apartment in the aforesaid land and after
negotiation of both the parties they entered

3|Page
 into and written agreement and a general
power of attorney was executed on 29th May
2014 in favour of the complainant and
received a cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- vide Chq.
No. 00350 dt. 29/05/2014 drawn on Kotak
Mahindra Bank of accused no. 1, Prakash Singh
Choudhary being attorney holder of all other
accused persons and thereafter received from
complainant a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- through
RTGS UTR No. KKBKR52014062700752791 dt.
27/06/2014 from that very bank in favour of
accused no. 1 Prakash Singh Choudhary and
further received 4 lacs through RTGS UTR No.
KKBKR52014073100896040 dt. 31/07/2017 from
that very bank in favour of accused no. 1
Prakash Singh Choudhary and further in cash
ten times each Rs. 50,000/- and respondent
no.2 issued 13 money receipts to the accused
Prakash Singh Choudhary for the aforesaid
transactions and all the accused persons all
together receipt a total sum of Rs. 21 lacs
only from complainant though accused no. 1
mentioned hereinafter.

5.That, it was further alleged that as per

terms and conditions of the agreement vacant

4|Page
 possession of the aforesaid premises within
seven days has to be delivered by the accused
persons to the complainant and during the
time of construction, within eleven months
complainant has to pay total sum of Rs. 30
lacs and if the complainant fail to pay the
amount within stipulated date and time and
the interest of the remaining sum from the
date of default till final payment.

6.That, further prosecution case is that after

receiving the huge amount accused persons
intentionally not delivered vacant possession
nor allowed the complainant to demolish the
old structure standing there on the above
mentioned land nor allowed the complainant to
construct apartment as per agreement and
lingering the matter the reason best known to
the accused persons.

7.That, it was further alleged that accused

persons subsequently agree to refund the
aforesaid received amount and accused no. 1
Prakash Singh Choudhary issued three post
dated cheque dt. 01/06/2016 Rs. 8 lacs chq.
Vide no.466922, dt. 18/06/2016 Rs. 3.00 lacs
vide chq. No.466924, dt. 02/07/2016 Rs. 3.00

5|Page
 lacs and cheque no. 466925 dt. 09/07/2016 Rs.
2.00 lacs. In favour of the complainant and
all the cheques were drawn on Allahabad Bank,
Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad all against the
advance amount of Rs. 21.00 lacs. And for
remaining 13.00 lacs. The accused persons
assured to return the same within three
months from last date of cheque i.e
09/07/2016.

8.That, it was further alleged that the

complainant presented the cheques for
encashment at Ranchi but Oriental Bank of
Commerce returned the cheques with remarked
fund insufficient. The complainant made
contact to the accused persons then accused
persons asked the complainant to present the
cheques after one month and as such
complainant again presented the cheque after
one month but bank returned the cheque with
remarked on cheque on 05/08/2018 insufficient
of fund and complainant as such not presented
other two cheques.

9.That the accused persons all gave false

assurance one after another neither hand over
the possession of land by demolishing the old

6|Page
 structure till today nor he returned advance
amount of Rs. 21.00 lacs.

10. That, the further case of complainant is

that complainant also came to learn that
accused person earlier entered into an
agreement with one M/s. Swastik Infra
Developers represented by Mahadeo Mandal for
construction of the apartment and also
received amount from him but did not
delivered of the vacant possession to M/s.
Swastik Infra Developers and as such cheated
him.

11. That, it is clear that the complainant was

cheated by the accused persons and huge money
was misappropriated by the accused persons
and as such prayed for taking action.

12. That, on enquiry learned Judicial

Magistrate Miss. Aishya Singh Sardar vide
order dated 26/04/2022 took cognizance of the
offence was taken by the learned Judicial
Magistrate u/s. 406, 420, 120(b) IPC against
twelve accused persons.

13. That, the petitioner has got the reasonable

apprehension of being arrested in connection

7|Page
of the above false case, hence present bail
application on amongst the other following
grounds :

GROUNDS

1.For that petitioners are totally innocent

falsely implicated in the above case and
not committed any offence.

2. For that it is a case of contractual

obligation and for nonfulfilment of the
same, a civil liability is maintainable and
criminal case is abuse of law.

3.For that, present petitioners are residing

at Pindrajora, Bokaro neither present
petitioners entered into agreement and put
signature on the agreement paper nor
received any amount from the complainant
and as such to fed fade grudge petitioners
are made accused in present case.

4.For that, for dishonour of cheque no case

u/s. 420 made out only case 138 N.I.Act is
maintainable. The other grievance of the
complainant is that accused person failed
to deliver vacant possession of the landed
property after demolishing the existing
8|Page
 structure is absolutely wrong and from the
annexures i.e photograph clearly proves
that the petitioner no. 1 started
demolishing the old building but the
complainant filed the present case against
petitioners and others.

5. For that E.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Yadav, E.W. 2

Pratap Banerjee and E.W. 3 Dhananjay Kumar
Singh are employees of Morias
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And highly
interested and absurd statement in the
court.

6.For that, not the single independent

witness of the locality came forward and
supported the case of the complainant.

7.For that, learned ADJ IX Dhanbad pleased to

allow Anticipatory Bail being ABP No.
1377/22 to Subhash Singh Choudhary and
Vikash Singh Choudhary and also Amu Bala
Devi @ Manju Devi vide ABP No.: 2886/22
u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. that the case of the
petitioners is stand on the same footing as
Subhash Singh Choudhary and Vikash Singh
Choudhary and Amu Bala Devi.

9|Page
8.For that, in a catena of judgement the
hon’ble Supreme Court held that (Money
advance on a contract liability is of civil
nature and it was also held charged u/s.
420 and 406 cannot be clubbed together. It
was recently held Hon’ble High Court,
Jharkhand, Ranchi that when there is a
special act i.e. u/s.138 N.I.Act sections
of IPC are not applicable.

9.For that, the Hon’ble High Court in 1989

BLJR page 27 held offense of cheating not
made only because of the dishonour of the
cheque.

10. For that, there are large number of

family members and as such there was some
delay in demolishing the building and
handover the vacant possession.

11. For that, petitioners are innocent,

police is in search of the petitioners for
their arrest and in event of arrest
petitioners will be unnecessary harass and
humiliated in the locality and society.

12. For that, petitioners are ready and

willing to abide by the terms and

10 | P a g e
 conditions paid down u/s. 438(II) Cr.P.C.
and other conditions as may be imposed by
your honour.

13. For that, other and further grounds

shall be urged at the time of the hearing
of the bail application.

It is therefore prayed
your honour may be
gratuitously pleased to in
large your petitioners on
bail u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. and
pass necessarily order for
the same.

And for this, petitioners shall ever pray.

11 | P a g e
 A F F I D A V I T
I, Subodh Tiwari, S/o.- Haridwar Tiwari, aged about- 56
years, by faith - Hindu, by occupation – Business,
R/o.- Shiv Mandir, Mada Colony, Hirapur, Dist.-
Dhanbad, having Adhar No.: 2609 7132 5983 do hereby
solemnly affirm and declared on oath as follows :

1. I am parvikar of the petitioners no.1 & 2 and I am

also well acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case.

2. That, no regular or anticipatory bail on behalf of

the petitioners earlier filed either before court
below or before your Honour’s court or before Hon’ble
High Court, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. No processes u/s. 82,83 Cr.P.C. have been issued

against the petitioners as yet.

4. That, the statement made above have been read over

and explained in Hindi which I have fully understood
the same and they are true to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

Verification

The statement made above are true

to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I signed this verification at Dhanbad on
_______.

Identified by

(Advocate)

12 | P a g e