The Patna High Court disposed of a Criminal Miscellaneous application seeking anticipatory bail. The Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail as the petitioner failed to make out a case for its grant, directing him to surrender and seek regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.53789 of 2013
======================================================
1. Murari Singh S/O Ramesh Pd. Singh R/ B/204, Sundari Enclave,
Dhirachak, Anishabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
2 19-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody has
appeared on behalf of the State.
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case instituted
under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code vide Buddha Colony
P.S. Case No. 34 of 2013. The allegation is that the husband of the
informant was engaged in doing Piling work. The petitioner and
other accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs for supply of
material which was given to them by cheque by the husband. The
materials were not supplied and as such, payment of cheque was
stopped. The petitioner and his brother Om Prakash came at the
house of the informant along with three unknown persons and
threatened with dire consequences. On the day of the occurrence
on a request made by the petitioner, the husband of the informant
had gone to meet him whereafter he did not return.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53789 of 2013 (2) dt.19-03-2014
2
the husband of the informant had purchased certain goods from the petitioner and for which he was paid consideration money thereof. The payment whereof was later stopped. A legal notice was given to the husband of the informant then the present case has been lodged.
Be that as it may, considering the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the materials collected in course of investigation as reflected from the impugned order, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner is able to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. The petitioner should surrender and pray for regular bail in the Court below.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
Pankaj/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case being instituted under Section 365 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Murari Singh
The State Of Bihar
Kishore Kumar Mandal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
