Tarni Rajak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40283 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2406 Year-2019 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== TARNI RAJAK S/o Late Ganesh Rajak R/o Village- Barari, P.S.- Barari, Distict- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

MD ASHIK S/o Sitabuddin R/o Village- Soharadangi, P.O.- Kumaripur, P.S.- Manihari, District- Katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pravin Chandra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyaya Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh Ms. Neha Rani ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 02-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, registered in connection with Complaint Case No. 2406 of 2019.

The complainant is a dealer of crops. As per allegation, the petitioner purchased mustard from the complainant for Rs. 1,71,648/- on credit. On persistent demand, the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on 20.06.2019, which was dishonoured by the Bank.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40283 of 2020(5) dt.02-08-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has submitted further that he is unable to contact his client and seek instructions.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail.

From perusal of the order dated 20.06.2022, it appears that the petitioner was ready to make payment and the case was fixed for today. The petitioner has assured to make payment of the entire dues within six weeks, but the dues have not been cleared up-till now, despite assurance given by the petitioner. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T