Anant Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29668 of 2017 (5) dt.11-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29668 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -7 Year- 2014 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Anant Kumar Sinha Son of late Ramesh Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla-Gandhi Nagar Andha More Gali No. 7. Nagmari Bhawan (NearRimjhim Hotel). P.S. Dehari (Nagar) Dist.-Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Vinod Kumar S/o Aditya Prasad Chaudhary, Resident of Mohalla-Pali Road, Dehri, P.S. Dehari (Nagar), Dist-Rohtas, A/p resident of Officer Punjab National Bank, Branch Kudra, Dist-Kaimur, (Bhabhua). .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ramchandra Sahani, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case No. 07 of 2014, disclosing offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the parties happen to be business partner and in the light of business promotion, complainant gave Rs. 7 lacs to the petitioner. The petitioner has never assaulted nor abused the complainant in any manner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29668 of 2017 (5) dt.11-09-2017 Hence, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has admitted that he has taken Rs. 7 lacs as loan from the complainant and he refused to the pay the entire amount. Cognizance under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has also be taken against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has been declared absconder in this case, which is evident from annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2. Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous application is not maintainable.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) Brajesh/- U T