Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manish Kumar @ Manish Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 573 of 2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Vijay Kumar Jha, alleged that the petitioner took clothes worth Rs. 1,25,168/- from his handloom store with an assurance of payment within 15 days. Despite a pleader notice, payment was not made. The complainant further alleged that on April 28, 2022, the petitioner and others assaulted him when he visited the petitioner's village. The petitioner contended that no clothes were taken, the complaint was false, and the matter was civil in nature, citing a lack of GST transaction evidence. The complainant argued that the case involved criminal breach of trust and assault, not merely a civil dispute.
Held
The Court found force in the submissions of the complainant. It noted that in addition to the allegation of non-payment of Rs. 1,25,168/-, there was a specific allegation of abuse and assault against the petitioner on April 28, 2022, when the complainant visited the petitioner's village. The complaint was filed immediately thereafter. Considering these combined allegations, the Court concluded that a case for anticipatory bail was not made out. The reasoning was that the alleged assault, coupled with the financial dispute, indicated elements beyond a mere civil transaction, thus justifying the rejection of the anticipatory bail application. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the allegations of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and assault (Sections 341 and 323 IPC) constitute a case for anticipatory bail, or if the matter is purely civil in nature as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no criminal breach of trust was committed, as there was no evidence to collect the due amount and the GST report did not show any transaction. They contended that the dispute was of a civil nature, and therefore, no criminal case was made out. Complainant's arguments: The complainant argued that the Court was considering anticipatory bail, not quashing the complaint. They asserted that clothes were taken in a regular business transaction, payment was delayed, and a pleader notice was unanswered. Crucially, they highlighted the additional allegations of assault, which, alongside the alleged breach of trust, elevated the matter beyond a simple civil transaction.
Sections Cited
Section 406, Section 341, Section 323
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 09-04-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, State and the Complainant.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 573 of 2022 for the offence registered under sections 341, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant, Vijay Kumar Jha.
As per the complaint, the complainant runs a Handloom store and is in the business of selling of wholesale and retail clothes. The petitioner also runs a show-room and used to take clothes. Clothes worth Rs. 1,25,168/- was taken and assurance was made that payments shall be made within 15 days. As it was not paid, Pleader notice was sent which was not 2/3 answered. Further, on 28.04.2022, the allegation is that when the complainant went to village, Singhiya Khurd, the petitioner along with other accused persons stopped his motorcycle and after abusing, assaulted him. As the locals came, he was saved. This followed the complaint.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no such cloth was taken and a false complaint has been made. It is the contention of the petitioner that in a business term, there is no criminal breach of trust, there is no evidence to collect the due amount, the GST report does not show any transaction and in such matter of civil nature, no case is made out.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, on the other hand, submits that this Court is not dealing with the quashing matter rather is in the anticipatory bail. Complaint was filed and cognizance has been taken under section 341, 323 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It was regular transaction when clothes were taken by him and payments were made after a fortnight. As no payment made, it is on record that a Pleader notice was sent, which was unanswered. It is his further submission that beside 406 of the Indian Penal Code, there is allegation of assault also against the petitioner and as such, it is not a mere transaction which will put it in the 3/3 category of civil nature.
This Court finds force in the submissions put forward by the learned Counsel for the complainant. Beside the allegation of non-payment of Rs. 1,25,168/-, there is allegation that when he was going to village Singhiya Khurd on 28.04.2022, he was abused and assaulted by the petitioner herein. Immediately, thereafter the complaint was filed.
In that background, no case of anticipatory bail is made out.
Cr. Misc. No. 3027 of 2024 stands rejected.
Neha/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.