Ravi Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36902 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2021 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son Of Sri Janeshwar Singh Resident Of House No. 164 A, CDA Colony, North Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Smiti Bharti For the Informant : Mr. Ashish Kumar Ghosh Mr. Bajrangi Lal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-11-2022 Heard both parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 210 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the informant paid Rs. 32,000/- in the account of Bhusamridh Infra Company for purchasing 2400 sq. ft. of land, but neither the sale deed was executed in her favour nor money was returned and thus, defalcated the amount and cheated the informant. It is submitted that not a single farthing has been transferred in the account of petitioner rather amount was transferred in the account of company. Petitioner has been made

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36902 of 2022(2) dt.07-11-2022 2/2 accused in this case simply because he is one of the Directors of the said Company, as such no offence under Section 406, 409 and 420 IPC is made out. Present FIR has been lodged before expiry of stipulated period within which land was to be registered and only to put pressure upon the petitioner, the informant lodged this false case. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

Counsel for informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company. This petitioner and other accused persons are running a racket and are committing cheating and forgery with the innocent persons.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T