Siyaram Ray v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18843 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1622 Year-2017 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai ====================================================== Siyaram Ray, son of late Hardev Ray, R/o Mohalla- A/1015, New Sabaji Mandi, Azadpur, P.S- Azadpur, New Delhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Chandra Mohan Prasad, Son of Late Ram Pratap Mahto R/o MohallaPokhariya, Children Academy, Ward No. 37, P.S- Nagar, District- Begusarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1622C of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Prosecution story as per complaint petition is that petitioner has approached the complainant for a business in partnership and on that he has taken huge amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and when he demanded the money back, he issued a cheque of Rs.30,00,000/- of PNB with the assurance that the same will be honoured, but when the complainant presented the said cheque in his bank account maintained at Allahabad Bank, the same was bounced due to insufficient

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18843 of 2019(5) dt.25-06-2019 2/3 amount.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the whole allegation is false and concocted. Earlier petitioner was also given time to seek instructions as to whether he is ready to pay the amount vide order dated 18.06.2019 but no instruction has been received from him. Further submission is that he has not ever met the complainant and cheque bears only his signature and amount was not filled by him. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant, who has opposed the prayer for bail by stating that it is clear case of cheating and inducing the complainant as he was taken money and issued a cheque, which bounced. Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below and make prayer for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned trial court on its own merit.

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18843 of 2019(5) dt.25-06-2019 3/3