Me. Arshad @ Aarsi @ Syed Ashraf Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38217 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -84 Year- 2017 Thana -MAUZAHIDPUR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Me. Arshad @ Aarsi @ Syed Ashraf Alam Son of Late Chand Alam, R/o Mohalla- Mujahidpur, District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 31-08-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Mojahidpur P.S.Case No.84 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I.Act Allegation against the petitioner is that by placing another lady (Farzana Parveen), he has got executed an agreement before the registry office and taken away Rs.14,50,000/- from him on two stamp papers and there is allegation that when the informant complained about the same, he returned a cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- and that also has bounced.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is only witness in the said agreement and he has nothing to do with the alleged sale and the cheque, which has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38217 of 2017 (3) dt.31-08-2017 2/2 bounced, had not been issued by the petitioner. Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant. They have opposed the prayer for bail stating that the petitioner has taken papers to show only for selling the land but he has taken consideration amount of Rs.14,50,000/- and the cheque has been issued by some other person at the instruction of the petitioner, which has bounced. Furthermore, it is submitted that trial has already been commenced in this case and two witnesses have been examined and it is likely to be concluded within a period of three months.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances and as two witnesses had already been examined, as such, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T