Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5252/2019dismissed

Jai Prakash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-01-30Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5252 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2018 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Jai Prakash Yadav Son of Late Halkhori Yadav, Resident of Village- Mithaiya. Police Station- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kumar Vimlesh S/O Late Chandradeo Pandit, Resident of Village- Deo, Police Station-Deo, District-Aurangabad.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 178 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner is that by assuring the informant and others, he got deposited the money of the informant and other in the company named as Vaibhav Pariwar India Project Limited and assured them to return the same on maturity, but later on they have collected rupees four crores and the Managing Director of the said company has purchased 5 acres land in Gharhara Mauja and as such they have cheated the informant and others.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5252 of 2019(2) dt.30-01-2019 2/2 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner himself deposited total Rs.80,000/- in three installments and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant, they have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner stating that he is also involved in cheating. Having heard both sides, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, rather he should surrender and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit, without being prejudice by order of this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Amjad/- U T