Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57580 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar son of Baleshwar Thakur, Resident of village.- Patahi, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Md. Alam Son of Md. Usman, Resident of village - Abdul Mannan Market Near Sadar P.S., Bhagwanpur Post Patahi, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate For the State :

APP For Opposite Party No.2 :

Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 20-02-2019 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act registered in connection with T.R. No. 2136 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No. 160 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the transaction in question merely is of civil nature involving agreement for grant of franchisee of the accused no. 4 - company to the complainant. It is submitted that part repayment has been made by the company in the past. It is further submitted that in any event, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is bailable in nature.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2 appears and opposes the anticipatory bail petition, submitting that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57580 of 2018(4) dt.20-02-2019 2/2 the two cheques dated 14.09.2017 for Rs. 10,00,000/- each have been issued by the petitioner in his personal capacity as evident from the cheques itself. Photo copies thereof have been produced. It is therefore submitted that the cheques having not been issued by the co-accused Company but by the petitioner in his personal capacity shows his intention to cheat the complainant.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 17.01.2019, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states on instruction that he is merely an employee of the co-accused Company and is therefore not willing to make payment of the amount of the two cheques in question. The photo copies of the two cheques produced by the complainant are admitted as the correctness of the photo copies thereof has not been disputed.

6. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

7. The provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 28.09.2018 shall stand cancelled.

BT/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) U T