Patna High CourtCR. MISC./33903/2014bail granted

Surendra Chaurasia v. The State Of Bihar

2015-01-07Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33903 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -431 Year- 2011 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Surendra Chaurasia son of Late Motilal Chaurasia, resident of MohallaKhilanganj, Sasaram, P.S.-Sasaram (T), District- Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar 2.Md. Usman Khan son of Late Hazi Sahshud Ali, resident of villageKhadauli, P.O. + P.S.-Chenari, District- Rohtas at present residing at Usman Complex, Rauza Road, Sasaram, P.O. + P.S.-Sasaram .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, Advocate For the State : : Ms. Pushpa Sinha-2, A.P.P. For opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Anamul Haque, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Complaint Case No.431 of 2011 in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been contended that even before filing the present complaint case, the petitioner had instituted an FIR against the complainant which was numbered as Sasaram Town P.S. Case No.368 of 2011. Moreover, even if it is believed that the complainant had given a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner for marriage of his daughter and for running business, merely non-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33903 of 2014 (3) dt.07-01-2015 2/2 refund of the same would not amount to an offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has contested the matter and opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that a cheque issued by the petitioner for the alleged loan amount has been dishonoured. Be that as it may, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is allowed. The provisional anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 25th September, 2014, is hereby confirmed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T