Chandan Sharma @ Raj @ Chandan Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44764 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1209 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Chandan Sharma @ Raj @ Chandan Kumar, Son of Sri Mahesh Sharma, resident of Village- Raghunathpur, P.O.+P.S.- Hulashganj, DistrictJehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shubash Pandit, S/o Sree Doodh Nath Pandit, resident of Kurji, Vikash Nagar, PO- Sadakat Ashram, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ----------- 22-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1209(C) of 2012 registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 384 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation of the complainant Shubash Pandit is that the accused no.1/petitioner was known to him, who used to purchase and sale of old vehicles. The accused no.1/petitioner assured him to provide Tata Safari vehicle and, accordingly, he paid Rs.2,79,500/- to the accused/petitioner no.1 and on the instruction of the accused/petitioner no.1, also deposited

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44764 of 2016 (4) dt.22-12-2016 2/3 Rs.54,500/- in the account of the accused no.3 Ramandeep Singh and Rs.31,000/- in the account of accused no.2 Md. Danis Mansoori. In spite of payment of the money, the accused no.1/petitioner did not provide Tata Safari vehicle to the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant made request to the accused no.1/petitioner to return the money and also sent legal notice to him then the petitioner and accused nos.2 and 3 became annoyed and gave threatening to him.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it appears from the complaint petition that there is no document to show about making payment of Rs.2,79,500/- to the petitioner in cash by the complainant and depositing Rs.54,500/- in the account of the accused no.3 Ramandeep Singh and Rs.31,000/- in the account of the accused no.2 Md. Danis Mansoori. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender by him within six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Ravi Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No.1209(C) of 2012, subject to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44764 of 2016 (4) dt.22-12-2016 3/3 conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T