Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23117/2016rejected

Lal Babu Chaudhary And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-08-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23117 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30027 Year- 2014 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================

1. Lal Babu Chaudhary, age about 56 years, son of Chamari Lal.

2. Raj Kumar age about 31 years, son of Lal Babu Chaudhary. Both residents of Mohalla Kali Mandir Raod Hanuman Nagar, Police Station Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna At present Mahamaya Apartment, harihar Singh Road, Morabadi, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Kailash Kumar s/o Jawahar Prasad Managing Director, Kasut Builders & Developers, Pvt. Chandpur Bela (Pani Tanki) P.S Jakkanpur Dist Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mira Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint case No. 30027 (c) of 2014 under Section 406, 420, 379, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is that the petitioners being partners of the complainant took hefty amount from different flat owners but, on demand, did not return the money to Bishwajeet Kumar and Subodh Kumar Azad, the other partners of complainant. It is further alleged that on 24.11.2014 both the petitioners came to the head office of the complainant and assaulted him.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23117 of 2016 (3) dt.09-08-2016 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioners filed Complaint case No. 2091 of 2014 against the complainant and others in Ranchi in which cognizance was taken and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the complainant has already been rejected. The present case is counter blast of the case lodged by the petitioners against the complainant and others. It appears that the petitioners have got criminal antecedent and they are accused in two other criminal cases. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T