IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8965 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Prasad, Resident of Sumitra Sadan, Janak Kishore Road, Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, District- Patna. ………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Mahabir Prasad Gupta, resident Of L.I.C. Building, behild Janak Kishore Road, P.S. Kadamkuan, District-Patna. …………….Opposite Parties. ----------- 5. 19. 04. 2010. Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. L N. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No.2-complainant and Mr. Atul Chandra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2855 C of 2009, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner happens to be owner of a plot of land in the town of Patna and on his inducement the complainant agreed to purchase the aforesaid plot of land with houses and shops situate over the same for total consideration amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- (Eighty five lakhs). From perusal of the complaint petition vide Annexure-1 as also statement on oath of the complainant, it appears that complainant has admittedly paid Rs. 15,35,000/- (fifteen lakh thirty five thousand) to the petitioner towards consideration money. The complainant further claims to have paid Rs. 1,50,000/- but for the same receipt was not issued to the complainant and that is being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. However, 2 despite payment of the aforesaid amount by the complainant to the petitioner, the property in question could not be transferred to the complainant for the reasons that petitioner failed to evict the previous occupants over the same. This matter was heard on 09. 04. 2010 at length and was adjourned for enabling both sides to arrive at a compromise regarding transaction in question. Unfortunately, when the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties informed to the court that despite their effort, settlement could not be arrived at and therefore, the Court has no option but to hear the matter on merit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is prepared to return the admitted amount of Rs. 15,35,000/- to the complainant or alternatively the complainant could file a suit for specific performance of contract before the competent civil court. Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner and has taken this Court to various documents available on record and has submitted that it is a gross case of cheating and criminal breach of trust against the petitioner. Therefore, he is not entitled to have privilege of anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, in view of certain disputed issue of facts and in view of willingness on the part of the petitioner to return the admitted amount of Rs. 15, 35, 000/- to the complainant, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from 3 today, the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Kumar Sinha, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. Pratibha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2855 C of 2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. and subject to further conditions that before acceptance of bail bond of the petitioner, he must deposit the admitted amount of Rs. 15,35,000/- in the court below. The court below only after being satisfied about the deposit of the said amount will accept the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. Non compliance of the aforesaid condition would be construed that this Court has finally rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Further, if such a deposit is made by the petitioner and the complainant files a suitable petition either for entering into a compromise with the petitioner or for settlement of the entire dispute, then the court below may consider for return of the said amount to the complainant. If no such petition is filed, then deposit made by the petitioner shall be subject to outcome of the trial of the present case. m.p. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)