Ramanuj Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24523 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2665 Year-2018 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== RAMANUJ SINGH S/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH R/O MOHALLAR.M.S. COLONY, KANKARBAGH, P.S.-KANKARBAGH, DISTRICTPATNA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR 2.

MUKESH KUMAR S/O LATE KARU RAM R/O VILLAGE-KESHOPUR, P.S-HILSA, DISTRICT-NALANDA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA-ANISABAD, BALMICHAK, P.S.-GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.2665(C) of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant entered into an agreement with M/s Devendra & Devendra Pvt. Ltd. through his Managing Director, Ramanuj Singh on 05.11.2014 for construction of three buildings situated within

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24523 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 2/3 Darbhanga district. It is further alleged that as per the agreement, the complainant completed the construction work and handed over the building to M/s Devendra & Devendra Pvt. Ltd. and after accounting total cost came to the tune of Rs.57 lakhs out of which Rs.25,80,000/- was paid and dues of Rs.31.20,000/- was not paid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the complainant was a petty contractor and he was paid after completion of each stages of the work done by him as per the agreement. The complainant in the midst of the work left the work and has not completed the same as per the agreement. It is submitted that in the complaint petition, the complainant has not filed a chit of paper to show as to what extent he has completed the work and what was the bill allegedly raised by him.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the fact that the matter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24523 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 3/3 relates to a business transaction, let petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateXIV-cum-Sub-Judge-XIV, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.2665(C) of 2018, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T