Dhananjay Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21593 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1116 Year-2019 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== 1.
Dhananjay Singh @ Pankaj Singh Son of Harendra Pratap Singh House no. 2/627 R./3 H Sikraul Central, Jail Road, PS- Sikraul Dist- Varansi (U.P) 2.
Amit Kumar singh @ Dhiraj Singh son of Harendra Pratap Singh House no. 2/627 R./3 H Sikraul Central, Jail Road, PS- Sikraul Dist- Varansi (U.P) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Krishna Kumar Singh Son of Satendra Narayan Singh R/V- Kuddi PSChand Dist- Kaimur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-09-2023 Heard both parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No. 1116(C) of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner no. 1 issued a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was dishonoured by the bank, thereafter, petitioner no. 2 issued a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the same was also dishonoured by the bank.
4. counsel for the petitioners denies the prosecution case and submits that allegation is completely vague and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21593 of 2023(6) dt.25-09-2023 2/2 complainant has not whispered about the mode of payment in the complaint petition. He further submits that allegation of issuance of cheques by the petitioners is also false and concocted.
5. Counsel for State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioners are author of cheques.
6. Considering the fact that petitioners are authors of cheque which got bounced due to insufficiency of fund, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T