Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44727/2015dismissed

Prem Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-13Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44727 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -224 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHEPURA District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Prem Kumar Son of Shambhu Sharan Prasad, Resident of Village - Bhirkhi, Ward No. 26, P.S. and District - Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 13-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in Madhepura P.S. Case No. 224 of 2014 dated 15.04.2014 instituted under Sections 406/467/468/469/471/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner is that out of many signed cheques stolen from the informant, two of them, for an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- and Rs. 1,90,000/- were encashed in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was business deal relating to purchase and selling of land between the parties and the informant had taken money from the petitioner but the deal could not materialize and the informant has returned the money through cheque. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44727 of 2015 (2) dt.13-10-2015 2/2 been granted anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. submits that it cannot be believed that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- in cash which would be returned by the informant through cheque. It is further submitted that nothing has been shown or brought on record in support of such claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail, the Court below shall consider the same on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T