Amar Kishore Lal @ Akash Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11055 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1141 Year-2011 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Amar Kishore Lal @ Akash Prasad, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Lal, R/o- Bari Khagaul, P.S.- Danapur, Distt - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Pawan Kumar, Son of Kapildeo Tiwary, Resident of Village - Daniyawa, P.S.- Daniyawa, Distt - Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP For the Opposite Party no.2 :

Mr. Dilip Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== 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.1141(c) of 2011, disclosing offences under Sections 420, 323 & 504 of the IPC. Allegation against the petitioner is that for sale of a land for a consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-, he has taken Rs.14,00,000/- and executed a "Bainama" and it was also decided that on payment of rest of the amount, petitioner execute the sale deed, but he has not executed the sale deed, though he is ready to pay the rest of the amount, a legal notice has also been given to him by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing my attention towards Annexure-5 to this petition, has submitted that even according to legal notice (Annexure-5), petitioner was paid only Rs. 4,50,000/- for installation of mobile tower and that falsified the case of the complainant. Further submission is that there is no receipt to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11055 of 2019(4) dt.26-06-2019 2/2 show payment of Rs.14 Lakhs and he denies his signatures on the deed of "Bainama".

Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that receipt of "Bainama" (Annexure-5) disclosed that the petitioner had received Rs.14,00,000/- and "Bainama" is duly signed by petitioner and so far as Annexure 5 is concerned, that is with respect to another transaction, wherein petitioner on the claim of installing the tower, he has taken Rs.4,50,000/- from the complainant and the same was not installed, for which legal notice was also sent. So far as present case is concerned, legal notice has been sent by Annexure-6. Petitioner is in habit of cheating the persons. Having heard both sides, considering the fact, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below and pray for regular bail.

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T