In an anticipatory bail application under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, the Patna High Court confirmed the petitioner's provisional bail, noting conflicting claims regarding the authenticity of the transaction involving a tempo sale.
The application for anticipatory bail is allowed and the provisional bail granted vide order dated 28.1.2019 is confirmed.
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.4266 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1792 Year-2016 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur
======================================================
Anil Kumar, son of Rama Kant Rai, resident of Village- Shitalpatti, P.S. Samastipur (Mufassil), District Samastipur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Praveen For O.P.No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Nr. Sinha For the State : Mr.Ajit Kumar ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 1792 of 2016, corresponding to Trial No. 345 of 2018, lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken total Rs.55,000/- from the complainant for selling of a tempo. However, he has not sold the tempo nor the money has been returned to the complainant.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant is in habit of filing of such cases and earlier also a legal notice was issued to him for dues of Rs.5000/- and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4266 of 2019(3) dt.26-03-2019 2/2
now the present false and concocted case has been filed. Further submission is that petitioner has nothing to do with the Prince Auto and he is only the villager of the complainant.
Heard learned APP as well as learned counsel for the complainant, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner used to work in the Prince Auto and as such money was given to him by the complainant for purchasing of a tempo.
Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28.1.2019 is, hereby confirmed in connection with Complaint Case No. 1792 of 2016, Trial No. 345 of 2018, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Samastipur.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating case where allegations of false narration are made.
Anil Kumar
The State of Bihar
Bipin Kumar
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
