Rohit Kumar @ Ghanshyam Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20716 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-444 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Ghanshyam Bharti S/o Ambika Bharti @ Munshi Giri Resident of Mohalla - Sikandra Pur, near Shiv Mandir, P.S. - Sahpur, District - Patna At present address Mohalla - Chandmari, near Shiv Mandir, P.O. - Sahpur Danapur, District - Patna, Pin Code - 801503 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Bihar 2.

Yugal Kishor Singh S/o Sukhdeo Singh R/o Mohalla - Gur ki Mandi, P.S. - Alamganj, Dist. - Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudra Deo For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari For the Complainant :

Mr. Patanjali Rishi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-04-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.444/C/2016, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of N.I. Act.

3. As per the complaint petition, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant and complainant gave about Rs.39 lakhs to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner gave several cheques to the complainant and all of them got bounced due to insufficient fund.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20716 of 2024(3) dt.24-04-2024 2/2 petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. He further submits that it is a case of civil nature of dispute between the parties. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent in similar nature of offence, which is mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner has one criminal antecedent of similar nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T