Kishun @ Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68506 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-529 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Kishun @ Ranjan Kumar @ Ranjan Son of Anup Rai, resident of VillageVigrahpur, Near Bank Colony, Indranagar, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP.

For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-11-2019 This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Complaint Case No. 529 (C) of 2016, disclosing offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Allegation as per complaint petition is that the petitioner was in need of money, as such, he approached the complainant for loan of Rs. Ten Lakhs, complainant anyhow managed to give him Rs. 6.25 Lakh and in lieu of that petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 6.25 Lakh and asked the complainant to get it encashed after a month but it appears that the cheque was valid only for the payment upto Rs. Fifty Thousand, which was dishonoured by the Bank on presentation by the complainant and, thereafter, complainant sent the legal notice to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68506 of 2018(11) dt.07-11-2019 2/3 petitioner but petitioner is not ready to return his money. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is a sales man and has never taken any loan from the complainant and he has already lodged a Sanha entry in the concerned police station with regard to loss of his cheque, before filing of the present case by the complainant. It has further been submitted that in the cheque the date was not mentioned but later on the date has been mentioned in the cheque. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that there was no occasion for the petitioner to borrow money from the complainant.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the cheque in question bears the signature of the petitioner and further in the reply of the legal notice, the petitioner has stated that the cheque was stolen away by the complainant and in the information given to the police, he has mentioned that he lost the cheque in way, which shows the conduct of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that petitioner was fully aware that the cheque is valid only upto the payment of Rs. 50,000/- but in spite of that he issued the same for Rs. 6.25 Lakh, which shows

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68506 of 2018(11) dt.07-11-2019 3/3 the intention of the petitioner to swallow the money of complainant.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner rather petitioner has to surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the court below will dispose of the same on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by this order.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T