Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72611 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2259 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Singh Manager of M/s Haryana Transport Corporation of India, Mahatma Gandhi Setu Road, Police Station -Agamkuan, District -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

M/s Alkem Laboratories Limited through its constituted Aurhtority Sri Anil Kumar Sri Anil Kumar,(age-58) Son of Late Shri Janak Prasad Sharma, Depot Manager, Exhibition Road, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Distt.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakash Chandra Agrawal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suman Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Despite issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2, no one appears on his behalf.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 407 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution is based upon a complaint wherein allegation is that an entrustment for consignment of medicine worth Rs. 12,35,014/- was made to the transport corporation, of which, the petitioner is manager. It is alleged that the transport company delivered the consignment to a different agency and thus only a part payment of Rs. 4,23,380/- has been made to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72611 of 2024(8) dt.15-05-2025 2/3 complainant and rest amount has not been returned neither the consignment of medicine has been made available to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint are not correct. In any view of the matter, by the earlier order, the petitioner had sought sometime for filing a supplementary affidavit to bring joint compromise on record. In view of the same, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner bringing on record the joint petition which is annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary affidavit and a perusal of the same would show that the complainant and the petitioner have both presented themselves before the learned court below where the joint petition has been submitted and kept on record and the complainant himself has prayed for a date which would be after 28.04.2025 which is the date fixed by the High Court in the present matter.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

6. In such view of the matter, noticing that the dispute is basically arising out of contractual obligations and business transaction and a compromise has also been arrived at

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72611 of 2024(8) dt.15-05-2025 3/3 between the parties, let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 2259 of 2016, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) devendra/- U T