High CourtsSingle Bench

Premdeep Kumar And Ors vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 2 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 PAT CK 0045

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 341, 409, 420, 504 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438(2)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 77333 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 449 words
1.

Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Motihari Town PS Case No. 567 of 2019 dated 12.08.2019 instituted under Sections 409/420/341/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The allegation against the petitioners and five others is of causing illegal loss to the informant in business dealing and further of threatening him.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no direct nexus of the petitioners to the business of the informant even as alleged in the FIR, as it is stated that it was the father of petitioner no. 1, who is the uncle of petitioner no. 2, who had a business partnership in which it is claimed that various amounts were invested by the informant in the year 2014 and in the year 2017 a dispute had arisen but thereafter again there was a patch up, but finally for the period November, 2016 and December, 2017, it is alleged that the petitioners along with other accused had caused loss of Rs. 1,33,00000/-. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioners had no deal or agreement with the accused and just because they may be related to the partner of the informant, their implication in a criminal case cannot be justified, either on facts or in law. It was further submitted that even otherwise the allegation itself is purely a business dispute, which is civil in nature, and should have been settled through the process of the Civil Court and the criminal case is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.

5.

Learned APP submitted that as per the allegation, the petitioners had also caused monetary loss to the informant. However, on a query of the Court as to how for such monetary loss criminal case can be justified, learned APP fairly submitted that the remedy available to the informant was to move the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for recovery of any monetary loss which may have been caused to them.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in Motihari Town PS Case No. 567 of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7.

The application stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.