← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9666/2023allowed

Prince Raj v. The State Of Bihar

2023-05-17Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9666 of 2023 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18535 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2021 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Prince Raj Son of Ram Naresh Yadav Resident of Radhey Kunj, Postal Park, Ram Nagar, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rajeev Kumar Son of Basudev Rai Resident of Gayatri Sadan, BK Datta Lane, New Jakkanpur, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Parashuram Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1 Mr.Shakti Suman Kumar Mr.Rajesh Ranjan Mr.Atul Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-05-2023 This is an application for modification of order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18535 of 2022. Earlier, Rajeev Kumar (Opposite Party No. 2) was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18535 of 2022 with condition that after payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to the informant, he would furnish the receipt of payment of Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of processing of bail bond. Rest amount of Rs. 80 lakhs would be paid by him in next 15 months in installments.

However, informant of Cr. Misc. No. 18535 of 2022

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9666 of 2023(3) dt.17-05-2023 2/2 filed this modification petition stating therein that as a matter of fact the actual dues is more than Rs. 85 lakhs and as such, he is not in a position to accept less than 109 lakhs of rupees. Counsel for the Opposite Party disputes the claim of the informant, and submits that it is pure and simple money dispute and informant is at liberty to file money suit for recovery of the amount.

In view of the aforesaid fact, this modification petition is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T