Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11279 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Sumit Kumar S/O Mithilesh Kumar Sinha R/O Road No.-8, Mohalla- Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kali Mandir Road, Hanuman Nagar, Ps. Patrakar Nagar, Dist. Patna. 800026 ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Suman Kumar Nayar S/O Brij Bihari Prasad Prasad R/O House Of Ram Dayal Mahto, Road No. 8 Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Kali Mandir Road, Hanuman Nagar, Ps. Kankarbagh, Dist. Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms/Mrs. Sachina, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Pandey (App.84) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the NI Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, in sum and substance case of the complainant is that the petitioner issued three cheques of Rs.22,50,000/- in favour of complainant but these cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, complainant demanded his money from the petitioner but he refused to pay and threatened him to kill.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that complainant is organizer of a business Committee in which the petitioner and 13 other

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11279 of 2024(8) dt.23-01-2025 2/2 persons are members. He has further submitted that while joining as member of the said committee, petitioner gave three cheques and a blank stamp paper of Rs. 1,000/- as security to the complainant. He has further submitted that alleged witnesses are the men of the complainant and they are his staffs. Petitioner has neither signed any memorandum nor he is owner of the land for which alleged false and fabricated memorandum of receipt or agreement has been prepared by the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the petitioner is named in the complainant with specific allegation that he cheated the complainant and took Rs. 45 lacs from him for selling a piece of land which is not in his name and cheques issued by him got dishonoured. Petitioner has criminal antecedent of similar nature as two cases are pending against him.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of allegation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T