This court allowed a petition seeking anticipatory bail for three individuals facing charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The court held the case to be essentially a civil dispute regarding an agreement and advance payment, noting the lack of witness appearance.
Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
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.9477 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2019 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Katihar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2019 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 420,406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a dispute relating to an agreement with the informant. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have received amount inadvance and the remaining amount is to be paid, thereafter registry is to be done. However, the informant has lodged the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9477 of 2020(4) dt.07-01-2022 2/2
FIR on the basis of one of his brother’s who had entered into an agreement earlier with some third parties. However, that agreement already stands repudiated. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners was always ready to pay back the advance amount. However, the case could not form part within the ambit of Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Notices were served on the complainant but no one
appears.
In view of the nature of case, which is essentially a civil dispute, I am inclined to allow the petitioners on bail, in the event of arrest they shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC being essentially a civil dispute.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Md. Jamal and Others
The State of Bihar
Mihir Kumar Jha
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
