IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74218 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2024 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Ansuman Kumar Son of Ravishankar Verma Resident of - Sarwa Bazar, Srawan Khas, Sarwan Bazar, Sharmakhas, P.S.- Barachatti, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Natraj Verma, Advocate Mr. Sachira, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 22-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 223 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Complainant is a non-banking finance company and it has financed 26 TVS motorcycles. However, as per allegation, loan was sanctioned for particular model of TVS motorcycle. But different model of TVS motorcycle was delivered to the loanee and registered with Transport Authority. Hence, the informant/company has suffered loss on account of fraud committed by the accused person in connivance with each Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74218 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 2/6 other. Amongst the accused persons, besides the dealer selling the motorcycle, some employees of the company are also accused. The petitioner herein is one of such employees of the company and it is alleged that only on report of the petitioner, the loan was sanctioned. Hence, he is also guilty of cheating committed against the accused/company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that he is just an employee and he was involved in processing the loan on the request of the loanee as well as as per invoice report of the concerned vehicle from the dealer and the only allegation of the informant is that the vehicle delivered to the loanee was of inferior quality or of lower price than the vehicle for which the loan was sanctioned. Hence, it is the loanee who has suffered loss on account of the act of the dealer who has not delivered the goods for which the loan was sanctioned and the loan amount was paid in the account of the dealer. The action of the Petitioner no way attracts the application of Section 420 IPC against the petitioner because the first and foremost requirement for application of Section 420 is misrepresentation to the aggrieved person by the accused and acting upon such misrepresentation by the aggrieved resulting Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74218 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 3/6 into loss to the aggrieved person. But in the case on hand, the petitioner/employee has not made any mis-representation to the company because he has processed the loan as per the invoice report as well as the loan application and loan has been sanctioned for the same vehicle. It was for the dealer to deliver the same vehicle after getting payment. So, no offence is committed by the petitioner. If offence is made, it is the dealer of the vehicle who has committed such offence against the loanee. The company has suffered no loss in the alleged facts and circumstances of the case, because the loan is still intact and he is entitled to get the repayment of the loan from the loanee. 5. He also submits that there is no complaint, whatsoever, filed from the loanee regarding the delivery of vehicle of lesser price or lower quality. It was for the loanee to file complaint against the dealer. The informant/company has no locus to lodge the complaint under Section 406, 420 and 120B IPC. It has suffered no loss. 6. He further submits that even Section 406 IPC is not attracted as per the alleged facts and circumstances, in view of the facts that one of the ingredients of Section 406 is entrustment of property and misappropriation of the same by the accused. But there is no such allegation in this case. No money Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74218 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 4/6 was entrusted to the petitioner which could have been misappropriated by him. 7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case. 8. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 9. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail. 10. The informant/company is not impleaded in the bail petition. However, Shre Natraj Verma, learned counsel for the company is present He also opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail. He submits that the alleged offence has been committed by the dealer in connivance with the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is also guilty under Section 420, 406 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 11. I considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perusal the material on record. 12. The sum and substance of the allegation is that the vehicles of lesser price has been delivered by the dealer to the loanee, despite the fact that the loan was sanctioned for higher model of the vehicle and of higher price and the loan amount Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74218 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 5/6 was paid in the account of the dealer for that model. As such, it is the consumer/loanee who has suffered loss due to illegal act of the dealer, but the company, in the considered opinion of the Court, has not suffered any loss because his loans is still intact and he has legal right to get the repayment of the whole loan amount from the loanee. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Patna, in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 223 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.PC and on the following conditions: (i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74218 of 2024(3) dt.22-01-2025 6/6 same. (ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. Chandan/- (Jitendra Kumar, J.) U T