Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18417/2018rejected

Adarsh Kumar @ Adarsh Kumar Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2018-03-30Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18417 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3510 Year- 2017 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Adarsh Kumar @ Adarsh Kumar Pandey, son of Chintamani Pandey, resident of Flat No. C-113, Rajnigandha Apartment, Kurjee, PS Patliputra District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Anju Kumari, daughter of Jwala Prasad Singh, wife of Shashi Bhushand, resident of Mohalla Postal Park, PS Jakkanpur, District Patna, present address Alkapuri, Sandalpar, PS Bahadurpur, District Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhanendra Chaubey For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Anand Kishore Choudhary For the Complainant : Mr. Dinu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-03-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Petitioner, already in custody seeks bail in Complaint Case No. 3510 ( C ) of 2017 registered under Sections 323, 354, 379, 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34 and 120B of the IPC.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18417 of 2018 (2) dt.30-03-2018 bounced.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was agreement for sale in between Veermani Kumar Singh and the complainant and part of the consideration money was given to Veermani Kumar Singh also and not to the petitioner. Whereas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that all the accused persons hatched up a conspiracy, this petitioner initiated the negotiation, shown land proposed to be sold and also handed over forged mutation papers after execution of sale deed and after exposure of fraud in order to return back money he issued two cheques each of ten lakhs rupees which got bounced.

Having considered the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the nature of the offence the court is not persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner is rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Arun Kumar, J) Snkumar/- U T