Jairam Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22835 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1409 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Jairam Ram Son Of Late Hari Charan Ram @ Late Harish Chandra Resident of Neora Colony, Q No. - 560A, P.O and P.S. - Khagaul, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Bulbul Kumar Son Of Mahendra Prasad Yadav Resident Of Village - Lakhni Bigha Tola, P.S. - Danapur, P.O. - Khagaul, District - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sadanand Goswami For the Opposite Party/s :
Mrs.Renu Kumari Mr. Nafisozzoha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3. As per complaint case, on the eve of marriage of his daughter, petitioner borrowed Rs. 11,20,000/- (Rupees eleven lacs twenty thousand) from the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and thereafter, gave two cheques of aforesaid total amount, which got bounced on 12.10.2022 and 14.10.2022 due to insufficiency of fund.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22835 of 2024(6) dt.08-08-2024 2/2 petitioner has already refunded entire money, which he borrowed from opposite party no. 2, in his bank account. Details of the same have been shown in paragraph - 7 of the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of petitioner.
5. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and denies aforesaid payment. He submits that petitioner took aforesaid money on the eve of marriage of his daughter and when opposite party no. 2 demanded his money, petitioner issued two cheques, which got dishonoured due to insufficient fund.
6. Considering the fact that petitioner is author of the cheques, which got bounced due to insufficient fund in his bank account, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T