This is an order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating case. The High Court allowed the application, citing lack of agreement and receipt proof as grounds, and confirmed earlier provisional bail.
Application for anticipatory bail allowed and provisional bail of 08-02-2019 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.6710 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2015 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Anand Prakash Singh, Son of Rampal Singh, Resident of village - Akhalaspur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
4 26-06-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with Complaint Case No.304 of 2015, Trial No. 1599 of 2016, disclosing offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation as per the complaint petition against the petitioner is that there was understanding between the petitioner and complainant with the partnership for a project and for that complainant invested Rs. 21,00,000/-(twenty one lakhs) for the project, but later on neither the petitioner paid any profit to the complainant nor made any payment for supplying the materials.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no deed of agreement between the parties and he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6710 of 2019(4) dt.26-06-2019 2/2
has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no receipt of payment to show that complainant has given any money to the petitioner. Further submission is that earlier he has lodged a case against unknown accused persons and involvement of informant was also found in that, which will appear from the charge sheet submitted in that case, which is Annexure-3 to this application.
Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that he has invested the huge amount for the purchase of the materials. Petitioner, neither returned the money invested in the project nor he is ready to give any profit.
Having heard both sides, considering the submission of both parties, the application is allowed. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.02.2019 is confirmed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
sunil shukla/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for grant of anticipatory bail in a case alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC should be allowed.
Whether the provisional bail granted earlier should be confirmed.
Whether the accused is liable for the cancellation of the partnership project.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anand Prakash Singh
The State of Bihar
Sudhir Kumar
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
