Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22687/2021bail granted

Sushant Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2022-10-12Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22687 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-633 Year-2017 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== SUSHANT KUMAR JHA SON OF SRI PRIYA RANJAN JHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAKRAMI NAGARPARA UTTAR, P.S.- BHAWANIPUR (BIHPUR), DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari Mr. Madan Mohan Ms. Pallavi Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

In compliance of the order dated 28.09.2022, the petitioner and the informant along with their respective counsels are present, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the cheque was issued in name of the company namely, Nandlal and Company Products Private Limited and the petitioner being salesman had only persuaded the informant for depositing the amount in lieu of supplying the mustard oil but

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22687 of 2021(7) dt.12-10-2022 2/2 the company cheated the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that admittedly petitioner had not encashed the cheque and the cheque was also drawn in favour of the Company and not in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware that the Company would cheat him and his prospective investors. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but are not able to meet the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was in the name of the company and not in the name of the petitioner, as such, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 24.05.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) GauravSinha/- U T