Praveen Kumar Sinha @ Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4354 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2022 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Praveen Kumar Sinha @ Praveen Kumar Son of Shiv Pujan Prasad Sinha Resident Of Beside Saho Apartment, R.K. Puram Colony, Danapur Khagaul Road, Police Station- Danapur, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Madan Chaudhry Son of Jagmohan Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Enkhan, P.S.- Dulhin Bazar, Dist.- Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-01-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil court (Sadar), Patna, in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 340 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468/34 of the

2/4 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

3. Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.

4. Notice appears served to respondent no. 2 by way of substituted mode of service, which shows that it has been served validly upon informant but failed to join the present proceedings.

5. Allegation against the appellant is to cheat Rs. 11,16,000/- along with named co-accused person on pretext of giving a flat to informant but same was not delivered as promised. Appellant is said to be Assistant General Manager of the company namely, Patligram Builders Private Limited.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the thrust of allegation was against the director of the company namely, Prabhat Kumar Ranjan @ Uday Samrat @ Udai Samrat and Priya Kumari @ Priya Mishra. It is pointed out that co-accused namely, Prabhat Kumar Ranjan @ Uday Samrat @ Udai Samrat

3/4 has already granted bail by this Court, considering the compromise arrived between the parties. It is submitted that appellant was the employee and only explained the project to the informant in terms of FIR. It is also submitted that one co-accused namely, Brajesh Gandhi also granted anticipatory bail through Cr. APP (SJ) No. 2568 of 2023 dated 13.05.2024.

7. Learned Spl.PP objected the prayer of bail of the bail of the appellant.

8. Considering the submission as the main accused already granted bail by one of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties, where admittedly appellant was the employee, accordingly, above named appellant, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of six weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

4/4 Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil court (Sadar), Patna, in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No.340 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/- U T