Anticipatory bail not cancelled absent evidence of tampering, threats, or flight; partnership profit disputes deemed civil without initial deception, despite cheating allegations.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge–II, Khunti vide order dated 21.03.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 88 of 2023.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 is an accused of Khunti P.S. Case No. 19/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party no. 2 filed A.B.P. No. 88 of 2023 before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Khunti, which was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti considered that the allegations made in the FIR is that though the bus-stand of Khunti was allotted in the name of accused person for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 but the accused person approached the complainant and other investors and offered to invest them in the said business of running the bus stand with lucrative profit. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.7,99,300/- in the office of the Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Khunti by way of demand draft but the accused person had not paid the share in the profit as promised. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further considered that from the documents filed on behalf of the parties, it appears that the complainant was a business partner with the petitioner and the business was to collect the tax from the commercial vehicles from bus stand, Khunti which was lawfully allotted to the petitioner. The complainant and the accused petitioner entered into a partnership by executing a partnership deed in which the share of the complainant was only of 8% of the total investment. There was no allegation that the petitioner played deceptions since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. The dispute between the parties was relating to the business transaction and was of civil nature and on the basis of such discussion, the learned Additional Session Judge-II, Khunti granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the opposite party no.2 herein.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the petitioner herein was made to deposit Rs.7,99,300/- by opposite party no.2 in the office of Executive Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Khunti by way of cheating and criminal breach of trust and when the petitioner went to the accused person and demanded his money back then the accused person threatened him and misbehaved with him. Hence, it is next submitted that bail granted to the opposite party no.2 of the Cr.M.P., be cancelled.

5. On being asked by the Court as to how many witnesses have been examined by the petitioner who is complainant of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no knowledge about that. Having asked by the Court as to which is the next date fixed before the trial court in Khunti P.S. Case No. 19/2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no information as to whether the case is still pending or has been disposed of.

6. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposed to the prayer and submit that the averments made by the petitioner in the Cr.M.P. would justify that some offence is made out against the O.P. No.2. The undisputed fact remains that the of