Sanjiv Kumar Sharma @ Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71792 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2023 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjiv Kumar Sharma @ Sanjiv Kumar Son Of Goverdhan Sharma Resident Of Village- Hema Nivas, Priyadarshi Nagar, Dps More, Ps- Rupaspur, DisttPatna ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Rajneesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Addl Public Prosecutor Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 406/420/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 30.10.2022 petitioner Sanjiv Kumar Sharma and co-accused Sodhir Kumar, Govardhan Sharma, Smt. Heema Devi came to the shop of the informant and purchased Ply Wood, Sanmika and hardware for their house which was under construction. They purchased different materials of Rs. 9,06,059.64 from the informant's shop. It is further alleged that petitioner paid total Rs. 80,000/- and gave assurance that rest amount Rs. 8,65,553/- would be paid by him on 17.12.2022. Thereafter, the informant made demand of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71792 of 2023(4) dt.29-02-2024 2/3 due amount constantly from him but petitioner did not pay rest amount and threatened the informant to face dire consequences.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased goods of Rs.5,07,228/- in which he has paid cash and online Rs.4,40,000/- and RS.62,228/- is dues against him which he is ready to pay to the owner of the shop. It is also submitted that the money claim of the informant is based on the vouchers mentioned in the FIR, which he disputes and the same can be decided in money suit and no criminal case is attracted against the petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit controverting submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 has also disputed vouchers submitted by the petitioner as annexure 1 to the bail petition.

6. Considering the fact that the dispute arises out of vouchers/money receipt which can be decided by the civil court in money suit, prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner, mentioned above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sub Divisional Judicial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71792 of 2023(4) dt.29-02-2024 3/3 Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan Police Station Case No. 358 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T