Sunil Kumar Pankaj v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.13421 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -736 Year- 2017 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Pankaj, Son of Sajyug Ram, Resident of MohallaNuranibagh colony, Gayghat, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Maa Shyama Sales and Services Registered officer at opposite Radha Krishna Thakur, Bari Mandir, Belwarganj, P.S.- Kajekalan, through its Proprietor Amit Kumar, Son of Alakh Kumar, Resident of Lal Bhawan, Begum Ki Haveli, P.S.- Khajekalen, Patna City, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-06-2018 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 736(C)/2017, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Allegation as per complainant that complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner's company, namely Gracy Youth Vision for getting dealership of E-rickshaw and deposited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, however they did not supply the said E-rickshaw to the complainant and when he asked for his money, he was given a cheque of Rs. 5,60,000/- has been given to him, however, the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank on presentation.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he only happens to be the employee of the company and has nothing
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13421 of 2018 (3) dt.28-06-2018 2/3 to do with the allegation. It has also been submitted that the said amount was deposited by the complaint in the bank account of the company, whose director is Abdullah Azad and cheque was issued by Abdullah Azad.
Heard learned A.P.P. also as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is the authorized signatory of the said company and is fully responsible for the fraud committed with the complainant, however, learned counsel for the complainant conceded this fact that the complainant has deposited the above stated amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the account of the company, whose director is one Abdullah Azad. Having heard both sides, in view of the above facts, let the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-VI, Patna City, in connection with Complaint Case No. 736(C)/2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13421 of 2018 (3) dt.28-06-2018 3/3 U T