Anand Raj v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57536 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2017 Thana -PARBATTA District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Anand Raj, Son of Late Arun Prasad Sahu, R/o Village- Sahu Parbatta, P.S.- Parbatta, District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Raman Kumar, Proprietor , Renu Traders, S/o Sri Chandeshwar Prasad Sahu, R/o Village- Sahu Parbatta, P.S.- Parbatta, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 21-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Parbatta P.S. Case No. 29 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

The allegation in the complaint petition that complainant supplied 500 tones of Maize crop to the petitioner worth Rs.63,89,656/-. After deducting the vehicle fare and other permissible deduction, Rs.56,00,000/- remains due. Out of aforesaid dues amount, the petitioner paid Rs.5,00,000/- cash and Rs.20,00,000/- deposited in the Bank account of Renu Traders. The petitioner gave Cheque of Rs.31,00,000/- to the complainant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57536 of 2017 (4) dt.21-02-2018 2/2 on 11.2.2017 and when the aforesaid cheque was deposited by the complainant in the Bank, the same bounced due to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing of the bail petition does not deny the purchase of maize crop, but he took technical ground to escape from his liability from payment of the money to the informant. He also does not deny about bouncing of cheque issued in favour of the complainant by him. It has been submitted that trial is going on. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself after four months if trial is not concluded within aforesaid time.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T