Ranjit Kumar Prasad @ Ranjit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22976 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -27 Year- 2016 Thana -JANTA BAZAR District- SARAN ======================================================
1. RANJIT KUMAR PRASAD @ RANJIT KUMAR, son of Jagarnath Prasad, resident of village - Janta Bazar, P.S.-Janta Bazar, District - Saran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ranjan Kumar Singh, son of late Ramayan Singh, resident of villageSanduar, P.S.-Janta Bazar, District-Saran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 17-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.
The Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Janta Bazar P.S. Case No.27 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 323, 384, 420,406 Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
It is alleged that the petitioner offered to sale his land to which the Informant became ready to purchase the same for the consideration of rupees eight lacs. The informant paid rupees six lac to the petitioner and the petitioner assured to execute the sale deed within ten days. The petitioner did not execute the sale deed. He gave the informant three cheques; first
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22976 of 2017 (3) dt.17-07-2017 2/2 for `1,45,000/-, second for `1,75,000/- and third for `1,65,000/-, as mentioned in the Complaint Petition, which was sent to the P.S. under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C.. The informant deposited the same in the bank, but the cheque bounced.
There is no denial by this petitioner that he issued three cheques in favour of the informant.
Defence has been taken that the aforesaid cheques were with the Informant in respect of business transaction, but no any supporting document has been filed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail is, accordingly, rejected.
The petitioner may surrender in the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T