IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81000 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2024 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Shinki Kumari, W/O Rajeev Nayan Kumar, proprietor of Rajan Automobiles R/O - Ohari Pachamba, P.S - Kadirganj,Dist- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nut, APP For the Informant : Mr. Natraj Verma, Advocate. Mr. Sachina, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 20-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending her 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81000 of 2024(3) dt.20-02-2025 2/5 with Transport Authority. Hence, the informant/company has suffered loss on account of fraud committed by the accused person in connivance with each other. Amongst the accused persons, besides the dealer selling the motorcycle, some employees of the company are also accused. The petitioner herein is the dealer who has sold the Motorcycle to the loanee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. 5. He further 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. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81000 of 2024(3) dt.20-02-2025 3/5 No money was entrusted to the petitioner which could have been misappropriated by her. 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, Shri 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 loanee. 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 perused the material on record. 12. The sum and substance of the allegation is that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81000 of 2024(3) dt.20-02-2025 4/5 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 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. Moreover, no complaint whatsoever has been filed by the loanee against the dealer. 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 her 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 her 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81000 of 2024(3) dt.20-02-2025 5/5 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 her and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed her criminal antecedents despite her knowledge of the 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. S.Ali/- (Jitendra Kumar, J) U T