Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13528 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1651 Year-2019 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Deepak Kumar Son Of Shiv Kumar Singh R/O Village- Amra, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Gaya (BIHAR) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kundan Kumar Son Of Surendra Singh R/O Village- Kosdihra, P.O.- Chand Chaura, P.S.- Magadh Medical College And Hospital, District- Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks.

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Complaint Case No. 1651 of 2019 for the offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the N.I. Act. The informant claims that the petitioner was his friend since last ten years and as he was in urgent need of the money, he gave him loan of Rs. 20 lakhs. The petitioner promised to return the amount within two months and a written agreement was also made and executed to this effect. Further the petitioner also gave four cheques worth Rs. 5 lakhs each which are as follows:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13528 of 2023(3) dt.05-04-2023 2/2 Cheque No.

Amount Date 001053 5,00,000/- Five Lakh 05.08.2019 001054 5,00,000/- Five Lakh 20.08.2019 001055 5,00,000/- Five Lakh 05.09.2019 001056 5,00,000/- Five Lakh 20.09.2019 It was the case of the informant that the petitioner had an intention to cheat him inasmuch as all the cheques bounced and despite requests, the petitioner chose not to return the amount resulting into the present complaint.

The matter was earlier heard on 08.09.2022 vide Cr. Misc. No. 28425 of 2022 and the same was rejected. A fresh petition has been filed in which nothing new has come save and except a supplementary affidavit in which it has been stated that he is ready to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- in two or three installments within a period of three months from the date of his release. In another words, he has put conditions to pay even 1/10th of the total amount for which the case has been lodged against him.

No fresh look is required to be given to the present petition and as such, the petition accordingly stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/-Kiran U T