Second anticipatory bail application in a cheating and cheque dishonour complaint case. The court noted no subsequent development since the earlier rejection of 19.8.2023, held G. Sagar Suri inapplicable, and rejected the application directing surrender 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.23590 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1684 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur
======================================================
ARVIND KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE JAGDISH PRASAD R/O VILLAGESHARSOINA, P.S- N.H. BANGRA, DISTRICT.- SAMASTIPUR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar No1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP For the Informant : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate Ms. R.S Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with C.R no. 1684 of 2022 (Tr. no. 932 of 2023)
wherein cognizance has been taken under section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23590 of 2024(4) dt.26-04-2024 2/5
With respect to the remaining land, after leaving areas for common road etc., the lands were divided in plots with each plot measuring about 10 dhurs. Two plots were retained by the accused persons. So far as the remaining plots were concerned, an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the accused that as and when the amounts for the respective plots are deposited, sale deeds would be executed in their favour. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was given on 7.2.2021 while the remaining Rs. 21,47,000/- was given on 13.11.2021. Different amounts were transferred in different accounts as has been narrated in detail in the complaint. The accused inspite of repeated assurances did not execute the sale deeds and kept stating that the entire amount of Rs. 40 lakhs be deposited and then all the sale deeds would be registered on the same day. On the sale deeds not being registered, the amount was asked to be returned. Thereafter, the accused gave a cheque for Rs.21,47,000/- with instructions that the same be deposited after two months. The accused further stated that the balance amount of Rs. 7,15,799/- would be paid within a month. The complainant states that on depositing the cheque in his account, as instructed, the cheque was returned for insufficiency of fund. Notice as required in law was sent but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23590 of 2024(4) dt.26-04-2024 3/5
could not be served as the accused had disappeared.
the earlier prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.8.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. no.52693 of 2023. The reason for once again filing an application for anticipatory bail is that a number of points in favour of the petitioner could not be put forward in a proper manner. Learned counsel submits that no case under section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the same is an abuse of the process of the Court as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the number of judgments. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in the case of G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P; 2000 (2) PLJR 46 (SC). It is further submitted that none of the 12 persons named in the complaint from which the instant application arises have come forward to lodge any case against this petitioner. It was on the petitioner lodging a complaint, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure P-5 to the instant petition that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. As such it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23590 of 2024(4) dt.26-04-2024 4/5
party no.2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23590 of 2024(4) dt.26-04-2024 5/5
period of four weeks.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail on a second application after rejection of an earlier prayer with no subsequent development.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.PDistinguished¶6
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P; 2000 (2) PLJR 46 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
Mahendra Singh @ Mahendra Prasad Singh
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
