Ranvijay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45616 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28103 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== RANVIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BAIDYANATH PRASAD SINGH R/O MURADPUR, P.S-PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State 0f Bihar 2.

Rinita Singh, W/o- Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Singh Niwas, Bihari Sao Lane, Muradpur, PS-Pirbahore Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Udbhav, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP For the O.P. No.2 : M/s Suraj Samdarshi, Avinash Shekhar and Diwanshi Rohatgi, Advocates.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he being the Managing Director of the Samarat Automobiles has siphoned off huge amount of money in the name of supply of vehicle. The accusation is based on business transaction between the parties.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45616 of 2021(6) dt.17-10-2022 2/3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case merely on family dispute. As a matter of fact, the complainant is the own sisterin-law of the petitioner and the husband of the complainant is the own younger brother of the petitioner. Both are coparceners and are residing in the same house. In the joint family, there were several businesses including the present business and in Samrat Automobiles all family members are the share holders including the present complainant. Although petitioner has nine criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application but all are of similar nature and in all the cases petitioner is on bail.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that it is a family dispute of civil nature for partition of property etc., let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45616 of 2021(6) dt.17-10-2022 3/3 Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No.28103 of 2014, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T