Allowed

Nagendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC11 Apr 2018CR. MISC./42274/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court confirmed the provisional bail granted to the petitioner in a cheating case. The court upheld the earlier order subject to specific conditions regarding bail bond security and attendance, noting that mediation had failed to resolve the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Conditional bail confirmed: bond by close relative with immovable property; appearance as required; notice of cancellation upon consecutive absences.

Nagendra Singh Vs The State Of Bihar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42274 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2016 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Nagendra Singh Son of Late Nageshwar Singh, resident of Village- Urdina, P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER

¶8

8 11-04-2018

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶10

counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

¶11

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barun P.S.

¶12

Case No. 36 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that paddy was given to one Mukesh Kumar Singh, owner of Baba Baidyanath Agro Pvt. Ltd. and Baba Baidyanath Engicon Pvt. Ltd. The informant had a firm named Bainkateshwar Traders. The said paddy was to be dehusked and returned but neither dehusked paddy nor Rs. 55 lakhs worth of paddy was returned. When the informant went for payment, he was threatened by the petitioner and other employees of the Company.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42274 of 2017(8) dt.11-04-2018 2/4

¶16

petitioner that he is innocent, allegation is not upon him that the paddy was given to him, rather because the co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh happens to be his son and the allegation is that paddy was given to co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh that the petitioner has also been made accused. He submits that the matter is purely of civil dispute and it has been admitted by the informant that both parties had good business relations and out of the good relations paddy was delivered to the co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh and because of non-payment the present case has been lodged. It is a civil dispute and there is no criminal element involved, hence, he prays that petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶17

However, learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner along with his son, co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh had taken paddy and not returned either the dehusked rice or money and the allegations on investigation also has been found to be true. He submits that the petitioner and coaccused Mukesh Kumar Singh are habitual offenders and large number of cases are pending against them filed by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Cooperative Department and the Banks. He further submits that the petitioner

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42274 of 2017(8) dt.11-04-2018 3/4

¶19

and his son co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh are in the habit of defrauding and usurping money of different institutions and private persons.

¶20

Learned APP for the State also opposes the prayer for

¶21

bail.

¶22

By order dated 16.10.2017 while granting provisional bail to the petitioner, the matter was sent to the Mediation Centre for settling the dispute. However, a report has been received by the Mediator that the dispute could not be resolved through mediation.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 16.10.2017 in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad is hereby confirmed subject to the following conditions :

¶24

(i) One of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner.

¶25

(ii) Petitioner will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required and failure to appear

¶26

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42274 of 2017(8) dt.11-04-2018 4/4

¶27

on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason

¶28

will entail cancellation of his bail bonds.

¶29

(Nilu Agrawal, J)

¶30

Rajesh/-

¶31

U T

Nagendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Bind @ Suresh Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Ajay Das @ Ajay Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Kaushalya Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State Of Bihar

Lallan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar