Gajanan Tiwary @ Gajanand Tiwary @ Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33424 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -525 Year- 2016 Thana -KOTWALI District- PATNA ====================================================== Gajanan Tiwary @ Gajanand Tiwary @ Chandan Kumar son of Uma Kant Tiwary, resident of Mohalla- Pital Ke Mahadev Chowk, Patna City, P.S.- Chowk, District- Patna, Permanenent Address- Sunderpur Banaja , P.S. Bihiya, District- Ara .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr Singh No.1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2017 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with B.P.No.1622 of 2017 arising out of Kotwali P.S.Case No.525 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections420 & 406 of the IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case is under Section 406 of the IPC and 138 of N.I. Act. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has duped the informant as he had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner but that cheque bounced.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken only one bus from the informant and he has already paid its cost, however, he has not issued any cheque in favour of the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33424 of 2017 (2) dt.21-07-2017 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant is agreed that if the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount, he has no objection and he will compromise the case, however, in spite of the proposal of the learned counsel for the informant, the petitioner is not ready to deposit the amount and further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Having heard both sides and considering aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude it within a period of two months and both the parties (petitioner and the informant) are directed to cooperate in the trial, and if the trial is not concluded within the period of two weeks, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the court, which will be considered by the learned trial court and he will also pass appropriate order. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U