IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39758 of 2010 ROHIT SINGH, SON OF SRI BABURAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARARI, P.S. TARARI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 13.12.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Shri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioner, who is in custody in Piro P.S. Case No.99 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. It has been alleged against the petitioner that he along with others by committing fraud, had taken back the possession of the vehicle, which was earlier sold by the accused persons to the complainant-informant. It was alleged that out of Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.3,25,000/- was paid and some formalities were to be completed. However, at subsequent stage, on false assurance, vehicle was taken back and thereafter, same was never returned. Learned 2 counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that in the present case, initially complaint petition was filed, which was referred to the police and thereafter, Piro P.S. Case No.99 of 2003 was registered. It has been submitted that dispute in between the petitioner and informant-complainant was purely civil in nature. However, only with a view to put pressure, criminal case was instituted. Accordingly, it has been prayed to grant bail. Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It was submitted that in this case, F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2003. Thereafter, petitioner tried to get anticipatory bail, which was rejected in the year 2004 itself and thereafter, he never bothered to appear before the police or court and finally after several years, he could be arrested only on 7.10.2010. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the prayer for bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also opposed the prayer for bail. 3 N.H./ It is true that conduct of the petitioner warrants rejection of prayer for bail. However, keeping in view the nature of accusation, the court is inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, bhojpur, Arah in Piro P.S. Case No.99 of 2003. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)