Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35384/2016rejected

Mohit Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-11-17Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35384 of 2016 (3) dt.17-11-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35384 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1420 Year- 2012 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPURNIA ====================================================== Mohit Kumar Jha, son of Shobhanath Jha, resident of village-Vishunpur, P.S.Amour, District-Purnea and at present the petitioner is resident of Subhashnagar, P.S. K.Hat, District-Purnea.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar &

2. Indradeo Prasad Sah, son of Late Bajrangi Sah, resident of Khajanchi Hat, Purnea, Muncipal Corporation, P.S. K.Hat, District-Purnea. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 17-11-2016 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State.

The allegation is of committing misappropriation of a sum of Rs.5,00000/- by way of inducing the complainant to pay the same on the assurance that he will ensure a shop in an upcoming market to the complainant. Upon completion of market, the shop was not given to the informant/complainant whereafter an enquiry was made and the complaint was lodged alleging that the petitioner had not only cheated but also misappropriated the sum of Rs.5,00000/-. It is submitted that there is no receipt or agreement on record. The complainant has not produced the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35384 of 2016 (3) dt.17-11-2016 original receipt of the agreement.

Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand states that the receipt granted by the petitioner was enclosed along with the complaint. It is also submitted that in similar fashion, the petitioner had cheated another person/aspirant claiming himself to be the agent of the owner of the market.

Looking to the allegation and other materials available on record, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Prayer is rejected.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) B.Kr./- U T