In Pravin Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 18, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "....we are of the considered view that prima facie the complaint seems to be with a flavour of civil dispute. That apart, investigation, if any, is to be done by the authorities, which would mainly revolve around the documentary evidence. As such, appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Investigating Officer (IO) may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the jurisdictional court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason."
With this it reversed the 5-page long order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had concluded: "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the seriousness of allegation against the petitioners. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within ten weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order."
The appellant was arraigned as an accused in FIR of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gist of the prosecution case was that appellant was a builder and Director of a company called City Green Infrastructure and had put up construction of apartments. One of the flats which was agreed to be sold to one of its customers, with whom the project proponent had a dispute, was not delivered the possession of the flat as agreed under the agreement and the amount paid as consideration was also not refunded; as such the issue regarding the same was pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority of Bihar established under section 20 (1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In the meanwhile, the purchaser initiated the criminal prosecution, which resulted in the FIR being registered against the appellant.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner no.2 (Arvind Sharma) Infrastructure along with his two partners namely Pravin Kumar (petitioner no.1) and Saurabh Kumar was developing an apartment on the land measuring 34 katha 12 dhur of Ishri Lal Yadav and Mishri Lal Yadav situated in front of Malti Kunj Apartment. It was also alleged that in the said apartment, the informant purchased flat no. 201 with parking in the ‘B’ Block in the year 2016 for total consideration of Rs. 26 lakhs, on February 23, 2018, a registered agreement was executed by the builder. On May 16, 2019, the informant paid 90% of the amount through bank and further on December 10, 2020, the informant paid Rs. 1,18,000/- as GST amount. On June 24, 2022, Rs. 1,36,800/- was paid as GST amount i.e. in total Rs. 2,54,800/- has been paid as GST. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,36,800/- was wrongly demanded by the builder which was more than the actual amount of the GST. As per the agreement, the ownership was to be transferred till September 30 2020 but till date neither the registration nor the work of the apartment has been completed and due to these acts, the informant was facing financial and mental hardship and alleged that the breach of trust was committed against him by the manager and his two partners.
The appellant had approached the Supreme Court for anticipatory bail because Justice Singh of the High Court did not grant him relief.
No comments:
Post a Comment