Sunil Kunwar @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49634 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2022 Thana- BUXAR District- Buxar ====================================================== SUNIL KUNWAR @ SUNIL KUMAR S/o Barmeshwar Kunwar R/o VillageRajpur Benilal Ke Dera, P.O.- Rajpur, P.S.- Simri, District- Buxar Pincode802155 at present R/o- Chotki Saripur, P.S.- Buxar Town, District- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar .

2.

Mritunjay Rai S/o Late Shrinath Rai R/o Village- Haans Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Haldi, District- Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, Pin-277402. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State through virtual mode in view of COVID-19.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No.217 of 2022 instituted under Sections 406,420 of the IPC.

As per the allegation in the FIR, the informant kept on providing coal to him but he in turn failed to pay the amount. Earlier also the same situation had happened when he had supplied coal but on the assurance of the mediators he, once again provided coal but finally a sum of Rs.20,70,510/- was due against him which he failed to pay and when he approached the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49634 of 2022(2) dt.06-01-2023 2/2 petitioner he replied in negative so far as the payment part is concerned. Left with no option, the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to him only Rs.65,444/- is due which he is ready to pay.

Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that there is huge gap between Rs.20,70,510/- as claimed by the informant and Rs.65,444/- which the petitioner claimed is pending.

Be that as it may, this court is not here to go through the mathematics. The facts remains that the informant has alleged payment of Rs.20,70,510/- which the petitioner failed to pay and thus he breached the trust that was reposed by the informant on him when he supplied cold to him. In the aforesaid background, no relief can be granted to him and the petition stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T