Patna High Court - Orders
Dilip Kumar @ Dileep Kumar @ Sonu vs The State Of Bihar on 9 December, 2014
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16621 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2012 Thana -SAMASTIPUR District- SAMASTIPUR
======================================================
Dilip Kumar @ Dileep Kumar @ Sonu Son of Naresh Kuwar @ Naresh
Kumar @ Naresh Singh, Resident of Village- Pahepur, Police Station-
Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.
For the Opposite Party : Mr.
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
6. 09.12.2014Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner seeks bail in Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012 dated 03.07.2012 instituted under Sections 379/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the initial complaint which was later sent to the police and has been converted into an F.I.R., in essence the allegation is that the petitioner was entrusted with the vehicle belonging to the informant and lateron it is said to have been sold to the co-accused without the permission of the petitioner or giving him any money for the same, but besides the same Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16621 of 2014 (6) dt.09-12-2014 2/3 being false, the very maintainability of criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is submitted that once the informant admits that he himself had given possession of the vehicle to the petitioner, any dispute arising out of either the vehicle not having been returned or with regard to any finances is a purely civil dispute, for which the informant ought to have moved before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction either for recovery of possession of the vehicle or for compensation of the loss whatsoever suffered. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner having clean antecedent is in custody since 22.01.2014.
Learned A.P.P., upon going through the case diary and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail. However, it is not disputed that as per the version of the informant himself the possession of the vehicle initially has been given to the petitioner with the consent of the informant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 138 of 2012. The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16621 of 2014 (6) dt.09-12-2014 3/3 cooperate or appear on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
U T