Bipin Kumar @ Bipin Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11747 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-674 Year-2017 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Bipin Kumar @ Bipin Singh, Son of Maheshwari Prasad Singh, Resident of Vidya Nand Maheshwari Complex, Manglam Vihar, Sudha Dairy Booth Road, Baily Road, P.S.- Danapur, District- Danapur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Danapur P.S. Case No. 674 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 406, 420/34 of the IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the written report itself, it is apparent that entire transaction agreement as well as money transaction is made between the informant and Pravin Kumar, who was the Managing Director,Kanishka Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Heis already in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has not received any amount from informant. It has also been submitted that the memorandum of an article of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11747 of 2018(3) dt.04-04-2018 2/2 aforesaid Kanishka Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., shows that petitioner is not the Director of the aforesaid company. The petitioner has been made accused because he is brother of Pravin Kumar. Learned counsel for the informant has appeared and opposed the prayer by submitting that the statement made by the petitioner to settle the matter is not correct. The accused persons have sold the flat at inflated price to other person after receiving the amount from the informant. They are ready to return only the initial amount.

This Court finds that there is no specific allegation against this petitioner of entering into agreement with the informant.

Similarly, there is no allegation that petitioner has received money from the informant.

In such circumstances, provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.02.2018, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, is hereby confirmed. (Sanjay Priya, J) khushbu/- U T