Anand Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

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

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sudhir Kumar, Son of Parmeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village - Parasiya, P.S.- Chainpur, District Kaimur at bhabua, at present Bhabua Ward No.6, P.S.- Bhabua, District Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... 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 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