Manoj Kumar Sah @ Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kr. Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30918 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -102 Year- 2016 Thana -ARA NAWADA District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== 1.
Manoj Kumar Sah @ Manoj Sah @ Manoj Kr. Singh, son of late Sarvanand Sah @ Sarb Sah 2.
Manju Devi, wife of Manoj Kumar Sah Both resident of village Garha, P.S. Udwantnagar, Distt. Bhojpur.
3. Dilip Sah @ Dilip Kumar Sah, son of late Dwarika Sah, resident of village Nonaur, P.S. Sahar, Distt. Bhojpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 26-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 102 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections 420, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that the petitioners acting as an agent of Weird Industries Limited induced the informant to deposit money in the Company on assurance that after three months, the money would be double. The informant gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioners to deposit, on their assurance, that money would be double in three years, but when the informant made demand of payment of maturity amount, the petitioner did not return the money and gave threat of dire consequences.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30918 of 2017 (3) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 informant has filed Money Suit No. 01 of 2016 in the court of Munsif 2nd, Bhojpur Ara, against these petitioners and other accused persons for recovery of money. It has further been submitted that it is a matter of purely civil dispute.
Counsel for the informant has submitted that outside the court the petitioners have compromised the case with the informant but he did not return the money after filing of the compromise petition. In such circumstances, from such conduct of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.
Petitioners may surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail.
Petitioners are given liberty to file necessary petition at the time of surrender in the court below in the event they agree to make payment of dues amount to the informant and, thereafter, the court below will pass appropriate order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T