The Patna High Court rejected a petition for anticipatory bail. Finding the petitioner accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy under the IPC where he allegedly fled after being paid, the judge dismissed the prayer. No other substance was found in this oral order.
Application for anticipatory bail rejected.
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.30163 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -445 Year- 2016 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District-
KATIHAR
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Ambastha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Dashrath Mehta
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
4 04-10-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in C.A. Case No. 445 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner being the Managing Director of Lakshaya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. persuaded the complainant to deposit Rs. 1000/- for five years on assurance that after completion of five years the complainant would get Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner also assured the complainant that if the complainant persuaded the others to deposit Rs. 2100/- for five years he would get Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainant and others
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30163 of 2017 (4) dt.04-10-2017 2
deposited money but, thereafter the company was closed and the petitioner is said to have fled away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, himself, is a victim and he filed complaint case against the company but it appears that it was the petitioner who persuaded the complainant and others to deposit money and no money was paid to the complainant after maturation.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
KKSINHA/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in a case alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Whether the petitioner's own admission of persuading the complainant to deposit money negates any material for anticipatory bail.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Bishwanath Sah
The State of Bihar
Upendra Choudhary
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
