Manju Shahi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36709 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-401 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Manju Shahi, Wife of Amarendra Narain Shahi, Resident of VillageWazirpur, P.S.- Bikram, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ajeet Kumar Mukul, Son of Sri Stya Narain Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village - Bibiganj, Bhatta Road, Danapur, P.O.- Danapur Cantt. P.S.- Danapur, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2:

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 Heard Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No.401(C) of 2014 in which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint would not attract the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. At best, it is a case of simple breach of contract and not a case of criminal breach of trust. He submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36709 of 2019(5) dt.16-11-2019 2/3 that as a matter of fact the petitioner has received Rs.1 lakh on the date of agreement i.e. on 16.10.2013 and Rs. 30,000/- on 24.11.2013. Except that, the petitioner did not receive a single paisa from the complainant, but the complainant has made false signature of the petitioner and written on the back of the page no.1 of deed of agreement that Rs.3,00,000/- on 26.11.2013, Rs.1,50,000/- on 13.01.2014, Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.03.2014 and Rs. 1,20,000/- on 28.03.2014 has been received by him. He contended that as a matter of fact the complainant wants to blackmail the petitioner in order to grab his land. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the petitioner has not filed any complaint against the complainant.

He contended that as a matter of fact the petitioner has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-. He has failed to transfer the land for which the agreement was made.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36709 of 2019(5) dt.16-11-2019 3/3 furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.401(C) of 2018 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- U T