Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.688 of 2009 ====================================================== Puja Prasad W/o Rama Shankar Prasad, residing at Flat No. 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budhha Colony, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Anjani Kumar Sinha, S/o Sri Devendra Mohan Prasad, R/o 74 Rental Flat, Mohalla- Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhanendra Choubey, Advocate Mr. Pramod Pandey, Advocate For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Sharwan Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Uma Nath Mishra, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 15-10-2012 After having heard the parties, in the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of the accused-opposite party no. 2 granted to him in connection with Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 148 of 2007 registered under [STATUTE] . by an order dated 5.11.2007 passed in Anticipatory B.P. No. 6324 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna Apparently, after the aforesaid order dated 5.11.2007 the opposite party no. 2 is enjoying the privilege of bail and almost five years have elapsed since then, but there is no allegation of misuse of privilege of bail by the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.688 of 2009 (3) dt.15-10-2012 2/2 the trial of the opposite party no. 2 has been taken up in the aforesaid criminal case and some witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the facts of the case, the interest of justice would be sub served, if the trial of the accused- opposite party no. 2 is concluded at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, so that guilty person, if any, is brought to justice. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in seisin of the aforesaid criminal case, is directed to conclude the trial of the accused-opposite party no. 2 at an early date preferably within a period of six months. If the opposite party no. 2 does not appear on the dates fixed either in person or through his lawyer, or deliberately delay the disposal of the trial, then the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds. The application stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.