Patna High Court - Orders
Amit Kumar @ Amit vs The State Of Bihar on 25 March, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75404 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2012 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
AMIT KUMAR @ AMIT Son of Sri Chandra Shekhar Rai Resident of
Ambika Nandan Apartment, Flat No. B/307, Patel Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar,
District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Aastha Ananya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Jha, Advocate
Mr. Subhash Kr. Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
38 25-03-2025Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ranjan Kr. Jha, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the shop of the informant Hira Panna is situated at Boring road, Patna. Amit Kumar and his friend Ravi Ranjan used to come to his shop and both of them used to purchase costly ornaments of gold. It is further alleged that in the later week of march, 2011 Amit Kumar and Ravi Ranjan came to his shop and gave a proposal to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 2/8 the informant and his son Sharad Keshri to purchase Flat No. 14D in Mohalla South Shri Krishnapuri, Patna as they were constructing multi-storied apartments in the name of Gokul Homes. They also took him to see the site. Thereafter, the accused persons showed a copy of tripartite agreement dated 18.03.2011 whereupon the informant asked for original, they stated that it was in the locker that they were partner of the S.P. construction, the developer of the Apartment. Further prosecution case is that the accused stated that the share of the firm and the apartment is 6485 square feet and Flat No. 401 and 402 each has an area of 1704 square feet and rate per square feet is Rs. 3500/- and therefore total cost of both flats comes to rupees one crore nineteen lakh twenty one thousand and price of flat no. 302 having same area is rupees sixty two lakh nineteen thousand one hundred. Further, Amit Kumar made them believe that the apartment will be completed by the end of 2012 and possession will also be handed over to them. Thereafter, the demand made by Amit Kumar, the informant paid rupees thirty lakh on 07.04.2011, rupees 10 lakh on 18.04.2011 and rupees eleven lakh on 19.04.2011 as such total rupees fifty one lakh was paid to the petitioner. The said amount was paid by the informant in the presence of Sharad Keshari to the accused Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 3/8 person at his shop. The receipt for the amount rupees thirty lakh on 07.04.2011 whose witnesses are Awadesh Agarwal and Ravi Ranjan. Thus, Amit Kumar received in total rupees ninety one lakh for three flats either through cash or RTGS. Amit Kumar visited the shop of the informant multiple times and asked for payment of remaining amount and started to exert pressure which raised suspicion. The informant visited the under- construction site on 18.07.2012 and learnt the land on which Gokul Dham the Multi-storied apartment was being constructed, the said land has been sold and the partners stated that they have not executed any agreement nor authorized Amit Kumar to receive advance, it shows that a forged agreement was created with a view to cheat and the informant was duped of rupees ninety one lakh. When the informant tried to contact Amit Kumar, he could not be contacted nor he met at his residence. When the informant demanded his cash, Amit Kumar threatened him and said that he had retained gold worth forty lakh of Awadesh Kumar and he could do nothing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is statement that the Amit Kumar has received rupees ninety one lakh in cash and RTGS on different dates but informant has not produced any documentary evidence to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 4/8 support his claim. It has also been submitted that petitioner has not executed any document and the petitioner has filed a petition on 09.01.2013 in the Court below for sending the disputed signature to a hand-writing expert. It has further been submitted that on 02.05.2013 when the petitioner was in jail, informant with the help of his henchmen coerced the petitioner to sign a purported compromise on dotted line on terms suited to the informant as per the informant's dictations as the petitioner was in custody, the petitioner was also made to make payment of rupees eight lakh in cash and at the time of filing compromise paid rupees ten lakh through draft. The petitioner was granted provisional bail on 31.07.2014 for one month on account of illness of his wife but due to unforeseen circumstances the petitioner could not surrender and was subsequently arrested on 22.04.2019. The petitioner on 11.02.2013 filed a petition for remanding him in this case and on the strength of production warrant, the petitioner was remanded on 18.01.2013 in this case. Thus, the petitioner was in custody for more than nine months. Petitioner has got seven criminal antecedents but he is on bail in all those cases. Petitioner has also filed a criminal case vide Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 279 of 2012 against his informant and his son for offences under Sections 407, 409, 420, 468, 469 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 5/8 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant by allurement and inducement took away the Mercedes Benz car of the petitioner worth rupees forty two lakh with bad motive and subsequently the informant of the present case on the strength of power of attorney applied for online transfer to get the ownership of the car without any consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the impugned order it will transpire that the learned trial Court has refused the bail only on the ground " on query, he flatly refused to repay the alleged money so paid by the informant to him stating that he has never taken any amount from the informant while he had agreed with all terms and conditions mentioned in the joint compromise petition at the time of obtaining bail on the basis of compromise". The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Bimla Tiwari vs. State of Bihar and Others in SLP No. 834-835 of 2023 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para-10 which is as under:
10. We would reiterate that the process of criminal law cannot be utilized for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail. The question as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 6/8 Putting it in other words, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ANR in SLP No. 3994 of 2000 wherein the Apex Court has held that:-
The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process of court.
6. From the perusal of the FIR and the proceeding of this case, I am of the view that the dispute between the parties is out and out civil in nature. The criminal courts cannot work as recovery agent.
7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail.
8. In the case of Biman Chatterjee vs Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 7/8 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the original order granting bail there is a reference to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise through the media of well wishers, there is no submission made to the court that there will be a compromise or that the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the Court. Here we hasten to observe first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not arise. That apart non-fulfillment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise. What the Court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75404 of 2019(38) dt.25-03-2025 8/8 said provision of law, it is not open to the trial Court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court has erred in passing the impugned order.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.06.2020 is hereby confirmed.
10. This application stands disposed of.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/-
U T