Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2165 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-814 Year-2021 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== Raj Kumar Son of Purendra Kumar Gupta @ Surendra Kumar Gupta Resident of village- Bada Pareuwa P.S.- Raxaul District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramprit Kumar Yadav son of Suresh Yadav village- Teldiha, ps- Tikka Patti, Dist- Purnia ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

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

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and informant had good relation. Accused petitioner had owned truck. Informant gave Rs.8 lacs for the said truck but the petitioner neither handed over the truck and its papers to the informant nor did he return the said Rs. 8 lacs to him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact there was good relation between the parties and both parties were traders of Banana. During course of business transaction, Rs.2,48,000/- of the informant was due against the petitioner. Complainant pressurized to return said amount. Due to loss in business, petitioner became ready to sell out his truck to the complainant. Cost of truck was fixed to Rs.8 lacs and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2165 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2025 2/2 after adjustment of Rs.2,48,000/- rest amount of Rs.5,52,000/- had to be paid to the finance company by the complainant. Complainant started running the said truck but later on he did not deposit the instalment of the truck to the company. Now, complainant with a view to grab the truck of the petitioner lodged the present case with false allegation. It is submitted that the dispute is out and out a civil dispute and no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of arrest/surrender within eight 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 814 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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