Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21762/2017dismissed

Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Baitha v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-05-16Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21762 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -421 Year- 2010 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Kumar Baitha, Son of Ramudgar Baitha, Resident of Village Raipur, P.S.- Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dev Narayan Rai, Son of Late Ramjeevan Rai, resident of Village Paridah P.S. Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahani ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Complaint Case No.421 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation, as per F.I.R. is that the petitioner and other accused persons met with the complainant in a Hotel and induced to start work with Priyadarshni Indira Mahila Vikas Sansthan, Amrawati and on that basis he opened Centre and the Doctors and staff were also appointed as well as the complainant purchased medicine and instrument and sent bills for payment, but when the matter came for payment of Rs.14 crore and 47 lakh, the petitioner refused to make payment to the complainant as such he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21762 of 2017 (3) dt.16-05-2017 2/2 has been cheated by the petitioner.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the petitioner has himself lodged 'Sanaha' against the complainant, as such the present case has been lodged.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U