IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2592 of 2009 KESHAV PRASAD GUPTA @ KESHAV KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF SRI HIRA LAT GUPTA WORKING FOR GAIN AS DIRECTOR M/S GAYAPRASAD HIRALAL LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 81, BENTINCK STREET, KOLKATA 700001 ............................. PETITIOENR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GOPAL KUMAR, SON OF SUBHAS PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOUJA PABA POLICE STATION DEEPNAGAR, DISTRICT – NALANDA ..... COMPLAINANT ...................... OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 3 18.05.2009 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Complaint Case No. 1083(C) of 2007 under Section 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Heard. Mr. S. Sanyal is present for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha is present for the complainant and Mr. S. R. Haque is present for the State. The allegation is that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 approached the petitioner who runs a finance company, for a loan of Rs.6,21,000/- and that he paid an advance of Rs.2,33,000/- to co- accused Manoranjan Chakravorty @ Monu Chakravorty and Devrath Chakravorty (who are not petitioners) but neither loan was given to him nor his money was returned to him. Referring Annexure-2 learned counsel for the petitioner argues that under this document the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has himself admitted that he had given a sum of Rs.1,22,100/- to the finance company through bank draft but he was not in a position to - 2 - purchase the truck hence he settled the matter with the finance company by obtaining a draft for Rs.90,000/- as returned money through cheque. A cheque of Rs.90,000/- as returned money and remaining money i.e. Rs.30,100/- was settled as company’s expenses. Annexue-3 is a certificate of Allahabad Bank through which it is reported that vide cheque no. 926445 dated 19.04.2006 a sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 Gaya Prasad. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant did not purchase the truck due to his problems and the account was himself settled with the finance company and that he has filed the complaint falsely as pressure tactics on the finance company. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner namely, Keshav Prasad Gupta is admitted to anticipatory bail. He is directed to surrender in the court-below within two weeks from today and on his surrender he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nalanda Biharsharif in connection with Complaint Case No. 1083(C) of 2007 subject to condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Kundan (C. M. Prasad, J.)