The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Singh, who was charged with cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court directed his release on furnishing a bond and two sureties.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each.
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.47494 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -438 Year- 2016 Thana -MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMUZAFFARPUR
====================================================== Pramod Kumar Singh son of Late Ram Dinesh Singh, resident of VillageMadapur Choubey, PS- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt Renu Kumari
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
5 10-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 438 of 2016 dated 02.07.2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner, as an agent of Kolkata Warehouse Company Ltd. and Pragati Pariwar Credit Cooperative Society is alleged to have induced the informant in depositing Rs. 6 lakhs in all, in the aforesaid two companies as the petitioner is said to have given an undertaking to him that he would get higher rates of return. Later, the aforesaid two companies closed down.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47494 of 2017 (5) dt.10-01-2018
2
Hence the aforesaid FIR.
Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner only acted as an agent of the aforesaid two companies and had also invested his money in the aforesaid companies and he himself has suffered huge losses. No money was accepted by the petitioner and whatever was invested by the informant, has been deposited in the companies’ account. It has, therefore, been submitted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the closing down of the aforesaid two companies of which he had been, at one point of time, an agent.
The petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2017.
For the aforesaid facts, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 438 of 2016.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
KKSINHA/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on bail in connection with offences under Sections 420, 406 and 504 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pramod Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
