Pradeep Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh @ Chitiranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34566 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2019 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH @ PRADEEP SINGH @ CHITIRANJAN SINGH S/o Jitendra Nath Singh Resident of Ward No. 38, Tar Bangla, Dehrion-sone, P.S.- Dehri-on-sone, District- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rvi Shankar S/o Surendra Rai, House No.67, Radhika Nagar, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Pancha Nand Pandit, APP For the O.P. No.2 :

Mrs. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-04-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 through virtual mode.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jehanabad P.S. case No.113 of 2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad.

Allegation is that the petitioner took loan of Rs.15,78,000/- from the company on the basis of forged documents and did not pay the instalments.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34566 of 2019(9) dt.09-04-2021 2/2 has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation of obtaining loan in question from the opposite party No.2 on the basis of forged document is denied by the petitioner. If the prosecution case be taken into consideration, at best the matter relates to civil dispute and the opposite party No.2 is at liberty to file a suit before the court below for recovery of the loan amount. On behalf of the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. On behalf of opposite party No.2, Mrs. Prakritita Sharma, advocate, submits that the petitioner after obtaining the loan in question has not deposited the loan amount to the finance company. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.

If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Further, if possible the court below shall dispose of the regular bail application of the petitioner preferably on the same day.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U T