Anil Kumar Pal @ Sri Anil Kumar Pal v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6019 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2017 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anil Kumar Pal @ Sri Anil Kumar Pal, son of Murari Pal, Resident of villageLalapur, Police Station- Kudra, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Anand Prasad Gupta, son of Birendra Prasad Gupta Resident of villageNuaow, Post- Nuaow, District- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 289 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he has taken Rs.13.5 lakhs from the complainant for brick kiln of the petitioner and assured to return the same within a year with 50,000 bricks. However, later on he has not returned the amount after one year. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner entered into an agreement with one Sangeeta Devi for purchasing her land and after paying Rs. 6 lakh the agreement was prepared and it was agreed that when petitioner will pay the remaining amount of Rs.5,10,000/- then Sangeeta Devi will execute

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6019 of 2019(3) dt.29-03-2019 2/2 the land in favour of the petitioner and later on land was executed in favour of the wife of the informant and for that informant paid the money to the petitioner through cheque. Petitioner has denied that he has not taken any money from the informant/complainant. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant, who has demanded the said money back and so far sale of land by Sangeeta Devi is concerned, after sale the petitioner has got a case filed by son of Sangeeta Devi for cancellation of the sale deed and that shows the intention of the petitioner.

Having heard both sides and in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, rather petitioner to surrender and make prayer for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order. With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T