Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 881 (PAT)

Abhijit Paul v. State of Bihar

2022-10-19

SUDHIR SINGH

body2022
ORDER The present anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the petitioners in apprehension of their arrest in connection with Budhha Colony P.S. Case No.181 of 2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 342, 379, 506 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. However, by order dated 29.10.2021, passed by this Court, this application has already been dismissed as withdrawn with regard to petitioner no. 2, namely, Bijay Paul, as he was taken into custody and later released on bail by the court of learned A.C.J.M.-II, Patna, under order dated 27.03.2021. Therefore, now this application is only confined to petitioner no.1. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant, Dev Jyoti, Director of M/S. Jai Mata Di Incorporation Pvt. Ltd., gave a typed complaint to S.H.O Buddha Colony P.S. alleging therein that Dr. Abhijit Paul (petitioner no. 1) who is Director of Dr. Pauls Multi Specialty Clinic Pvt. Ltd., was his friend and he invited the informant to invest money in his business. Believing upon him, the informant became franchisee of the petitioner no. 1’s Company. Both the companies executed a franchisee agreement on 15.02.2013 which bears signatures of the informant and petitioner no. 1. Gradually, informant paid Rs.1 Crore 61 Lacs and apart from this, also expensed Rs. 4 Crores from business fund. Again, an agreement was executed on 27.11.2014 but the same was limited only to papers. At last, on 15.01.2018 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed wherein it was agreed that the informant would have no concern with the business of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.1 would return Rs.1 Crore 31 Lacs. Till the time the petitioner no.1 will pay the informant 1% simple interest every month from 01.02.2018 to 30.04.2018. Thereafter, the interest amount will be increased at the rate of 2% till the set off of the invested fund. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner no.1 makes any part payment of his principal amount to the informant, in such case, the interest component will be calculated on the remaining principal outstanding. It was also agreed in the aforesaid MOU that the amount of Rs.1 Crore 31 Lacs will be returned to the informant within a period of one year. 4. It is alleged in the written report that till December 2018 the petitioner no.1 paid interest as agreed in the MOU but since January 2019 no payment was being made. It was also agreed in the aforesaid MOU that the amount of Rs.1 Crore 31 Lacs will be returned to the informant within a period of one year. 4. It is alleged in the written report that till December 2018 the petitioner no.1 paid interest as agreed in the MOU but since January 2019 no payment was being made. When the informant asked for the money then he was told by petitioner no.1 that he should meet the company personnels at Budhha Colony office and it was told that he would get the money from that very office regularly from May 2019. It is further alleged that when the informant went to the office of the company of petitioner no.1 situated at Buddha Colony and asked for his money, then on telephonic direction of the petitioner no.1 the other co-accused persons misbehaved and manhandled him and snatched his gold chain. 5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, the present P.S. Case was registered against the petitioner no.1 and others. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner no.1 submits that the petitioner no.1 has no criminal antecedent and has been made accused in the present case due to mistake of fact. All the offences alleged are triable by Magistrate. Except for Sections 406, 420 and 379 rest of the Sections are bailable in nature. It has been submitted that the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not attract in the present case. In support of his submission, it has been argued that from perusal of the F.I.R., it would be evident that there is no allegation in the F.I.R., that the petitioner no.1 had any dishonest intention, from the inception, to cheat the informant, as well as at the time of signing the Memorandum of Understanding. Further, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner no.1, as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, has paid interest to the informant from January 2018 till December 2018 i.e., for one whole year. This conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he had no dishonest intention to cheat the informant. Also, Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in this case, as there was no entrustment of any property to the petitioner no.1. This conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he had no dishonest intention to cheat the informant. Also, Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable in this case, as there was no entrustment of any property to the petitioner no.1. So far the allegation regarding snatching of gold chain is concerned, the same has not been attributed against the petitioner no.1. The dispute is purely civil in nature. At best, it is a case of breach of contract, the remedy of which lies in civil law. This criminal case has been filed just to mount pressure upon the petitioner no.1. It has further been pointed out that the Memorandum of Understanding was between the companies and in the present case the Company of the petitioner no.1 has not been made accused therefore, if at all, any violation of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding has been done, the liability will fall on the Company and as such the petitioner no.1 cannot be held liable for the same, as to when the Company has not been made accused in the present case. Lastly, it has been argued that the informant has also filed an application before NCLT, Kolkata for getting his money back. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail application of the petitioner no.1 and submits that a huge sum of money is involved in this case. Further, the conduct of the petitioner no.1 is shady from the beginning. It is settled law that if there are remedies available in civil law as well as in criminal law, the informant can pursue both the remedies and there is no embargo in prosecuting the petitioner no. 1 in a criminal case. Therefore, filing an application before NCLT Kolkata would not, by itself, bar the informant to lodge a criminal case against the petitioner no.1. 8. Learned A.P.P. for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 1 and has adopted the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the informant. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. regarding any dishonest intention from inception, as well as at the time of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding. 1 and has adopted the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the informant. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. regarding any dishonest intention from inception, as well as at the time of entering into the Memorandum of Understanding. Further, the petitioner no.1, as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, has paid interest amount to the informant for one complete year. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that the petitioner no. 1 be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 10. In view of the above, let the petitioner no. 1 Abhijit Paul in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge-XVI-cum- A.C.J.M. Patna, in connection with Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. It is further directed that the petitioner no. 1 shall cooperate during the trial and not adopt any dilatory tactics to delay the trial. In case, the learned court below finds that the petitioner no. 1 is not co-operating in the trial, the learned court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner no. 1.