Balmiki Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36424 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKatihar ====================================================== Balmiki Kumar S/O Sudhir Prasad Yadav R/O Vill.- Banki Basa, P.s.- Rupauli, Dist.- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sweta Kumari W/O Sanjay Choudhary R/O Vill.- Mushapur, P.s.- Korha, Dist.- Katihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Jiban Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramesh Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with C.A. 78/2024 filed on 16.02.2024 for the offenses punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is alleged to have received money from the complainant pursuant to an agreement for the sale of a specific piece of land. However, the petitioner subsequently sold the said land to another person. Upon the complainant's request for a refund, the petitioner issued multiple cheques, which, when presented, were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36424 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 2/3 dishonored.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Jiban Prasad Singh, submits that the case may be adjourned as the learned counsel, Mr. Satya Narayan Yadav, a practicing advocate of Katihar Civil Court, is not present in Court. On this ground, he seeks further time. He further contends that the case pertains to a piece of land that which does not belong to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 submits that cognizance has been taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He further states that multiple cheques, totaling approximately Rs. 16,00,000/-, have been dishonored. All procedural requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act have been duly complied with, and a complaint has been filed accordingly. He further contends that bail cannot be granted as the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been issued against the petitioner, following summons, issuance of bailable and nonbailable warrants and the said facts acknowledged in the order rejecting anticipatory bail.

6. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36424 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 3/3 the prayer for bail, submitting that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar, clearly indicates that the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been issued against the petitioner.

7. Considering that the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has already been issued against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for bail in connection with C.A. Case No. 78/2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T