The Patna High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court refused to extend bail privileges due to prima-facie materials indicating the petitioner deceived the complainant into purchasing a vehicle that did not belong to him under sections of the IPC.
The anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
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.39143 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1440 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar
======================================================
VIBHASH PASWAN Son of Sri Ram Pratap Paswan Resident of VillageMaheshpur, Police Station- Manihari, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Rahmatullah, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP For O. P. No. 2. : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
for the State and learned counsel representing the O. P. No. 2.
The petitioner in this case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.A. Case no. 1440 of 2018 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle in question against which he is said to have received sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant and promised to sale the vehicle on a total consideration amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the vehicle is in the name of one Md. Shamsul.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39143 of 2019(4) dt.20-09-2019 2/2
Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that this petitioner has duped the complainant by making him to believe that the vehicle belongs to him and then has received Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant on the pretext that he had already purchased the vehicle from Md. Shamshul. In this connection learned counsel for the complainant has produced the endorsed copy of the agreement duly signed by the petitioner and the complainant in presence of the witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the signature thereon but only submits that his signature was obtained on blank sheet of paper.
In the facts and circumstances of the case where prima-facie materials are available on the record to show that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the complainant and agreed to transfer the vehicle to him which in fact did not belong to the petitioner, this Court is not willing to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to him.
The application stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
avin/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner who is accused of cheating the complainant regarding the sale of a vehicle that did not belong to him.
Whether the availability of prima-facie materials showing alleged deception justifies the refusal of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vibhash Paswan
The State of Bihar
Rahul Kumar Sah
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
