This order addressed a petition for anticipatory bail in an IPC cheating case. The court rejected the entitlement, citing specific allegations of misappropriation and a pending related case.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed. Regular bail may be considered if surrendered within four weeks.
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.57832 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2018 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
Sanjeev Srivastava, S/O- Shambhu Prasad, Resident of Flat No.- 203, Upendra Villa,Vijay Nagar, Road No.-6, Near 1C Honda Rukunpura P.S.Rupaspur, Dist.- Patna-800002.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar No1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Madhuri Lata ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
4 28-11-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
The petitioner in this case is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with S.K. Puri P.S. Case No.251 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner with oblique motive and in order to save those persons who have misappropriated the amount and against whom this petitioner has lodged S.K.Puri P.S. Case No.258 of 2018.
Learned APP for the State submits that in the FIR there are serious allegations against this petitioner who was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57832 of 2019(4) dt.28-11-2019 2/2
working in the sales department of the company. It is alleged that the petitioner had got deposited a sum of Rs.7, 70,000/from the customers of the company in his own bank account with ICICI. It is further alleged that the petitioner has issued forged money receipt to the customers after receiving cash which he has deposited in his own account.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein there is specific allegation against the petitioner and some materials have come in the case diary saying that the petitioner had received cash amount from some of the customers which he has allegedly misappropriated, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed.
In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without prejudiced by the order of this Court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
arvind/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted considering specific allegations of misappropriation and obstruction in a cheating case.
Whether the petitioner has established that the case was lodged with an oblique motive to save persons he sued.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Srivastava
State of Bihar
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
