IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40894 of 2009 SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/o late Ram Kumar Singh, R/o village Bhagwatpur, P.S. Shahpur, District Patna …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dharamdeo Prasad, Son of Sri Parmeshwar Rai, R/o village Usrikhurd, P.S. Shahpur, District Patna. ….. Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. For O.P.No. 2 : None ----- 4 24.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. No one had appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation as per the complaint case is that the petitioner even after getting the major part of the consideration amount on Rs. 1,11,000/- neither did execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant nor had refunded the amount. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at best this case would be of breach of a contract or agreement for which remedy is by filing a suit for specific performance of contract. The allegation being of civil consequence, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted, thus, it is deserve bail. In support of his - 2 - submission learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh reported in [(2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 699]. Apex Court held in the aforesaid decision that the failure to honour the contract or agreement cannot come into the ambit of cheating or criminal breach of trust. It is submitted that petitioner already had suffered much as he has been taken in custody on 9.9.2009 itself. It is also submitted that despite service of notice the complainant has not appeared in this case. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that as per the allegation petitioner has taken Rs. 1,11,000/- but has neither refunded the same nor has executed the sale deed as per agreement. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri V.K.Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1039 (C) of 2008. Spd/ (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)