Ravi Ranjan Srivastva @ Ravi Ranjan Sinha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36421 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2017 Thana -BHABHUA District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================
1. Ravi Ranjan Srivastva @ Ravi Ranjan Sinha Son of Ravindra Nath Sinha, R/o Village- Chitayeepur Coloney, P.S.- Chitayeepur, DistrictVanarshi, Uttar Pradesh. At Present Harsh Construction Third Flore, Near Saguna Mod, Gola Bazar, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bhabua P.S. Case No. 39 of 2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation, as per the first information report, is that petitioner and other accused persons came to informant house and said that they are going to start some business and asked the informant to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- for the distributorship of the same. Thereafter, after agreement Rs. 58,000/- was paid to the petitioner and the co-accused Santosh Arya. Further, Rs. 1,92,000/- has been deposed in the account opened in the name of Google Web Enterprises. But inspite of payment of the aforesaid amount, no such distributorship has been given to the informant and thereafter
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36421 of 2017 (2) dt.10-08-2017 2/2 the present case has been lodged.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact it is the co-accused Santosh Arya who had taken Rs. 58,000/- from the informant and not this petitioner. It is further submitted that if some reasonable time is given petitioner is ready to deposit the half of the amount i.e. Rs. 29,000/- which is alleged to have been taken by them.
Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, this case is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks with a bank draft of Rs. 29,000/- payable to the informant of the case and on being satisfied with the aforesaid bank draft, the learned Court below will release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount. It is needless to say that the aforesaid bank draft will be released in favour of the informant and the same will be subject to the result of the case.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Manish/- U T