In the court of Principal Session Judge,at Dhanbad

A.B.A No.: /2022.

1.Prakash Singh Choudhary

S/o. – Mahabir Singh Choudhary
Aged about 54 years

2.Amu Bala Devi @ Manju Devi

W/o. Lt. Mahabir Singh Choudhary
Both house no. 17, Park Market,
Hirapur, Dhanbad, Opp. Jila Parishad,
Dhanbad.
Petitioner no. 2 is
aged about 87 years

Adhar No. of Prakash Singh Choudhary & Amu

Bala Devi : 584847683031 & 384169297584
………………………………Petitioners

Vs.

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

1|Page
 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.That, the no regular bail application on

behalf of the petitioner was earlier filed
before learned court below or before your
honor nor any Anti-Sapatory bail was filed on
behalf of the petitioners neither before your
honors court nor hon’ble H.C, Ranchi.

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

issued against the present petitioners.

2|Page
4.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. Petitioner no.1 namely Prakash Sigh
Choudhary met with the complainant and
requested for development of land 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
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
3|Page
 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 accused no. 1
issued 13 money receipts to the complainant
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
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 person
intentionally not delivered vacant possession

4|Page
 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
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 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

5|Page
 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
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 which 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 suc+9-

11. -h it is clear that the complainant was

cheated by the accused persons and huge money
6|Page
 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
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, petitioner no.2 Amu Bala Devi is

an old lady aged about 85 years also

7|Page
 illiterate neither she entered into
agreement and put signature on the
agreement paper nor received any amount
from the complainant and such to fed fade
grudge Amu Bala Devi is 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 position of the landed
property after demolishing the existing
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
accused no. 1 and other.

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.

8|Page
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 u/s. 438 Cr.P.C.
that the case of the petitioner no. 2 Amu
Bala Devi is stand on the same footing as
Subhash Singh Choudhary and Vikash Singh
Choudhary.

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.

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.

9|Page
11. For that, petitioners are innocent,
police is in search of the petitioners for
their arrest and in event of arrest the
petitioner 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
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.

10 | P a g e
 AFFIDAVIT

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)

11 | P a g e