Jai Ram Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18505 of 2014 ====================================================== Jai Ram Singh son of Sri Ishwari Singh @ Ishwar Singh resident of Village - Sinduari, P.S.- Hisua, District - Nawada.

... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Srikant Singh, Son of Sri Jagdish Singh, Resident of village - Bareo, P.S. Akbarpur, District - Nawada.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07/ 22-07-2015 The present application has been filed for modification of order dated 16.04.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4253 of 2013 to the extent of extending the period of deposit of Rs.4,15,000/-.

The petitioner was granted provisional anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.04.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4253 of 2013 in connection with Complaint Case No. 932 of 2012 wherein processes were directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of N.I. Act. The prosecution case is that petitioner took friendly loan to the tune of Rs. 4,15,000/- through three cheques from the complainant. Subsequently petitioner issued a cheque for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18505 of 2014 (07) dt.22-07-2015 2/2 payment of the said amount which got bounced. The petitioner undertook to deposit before the learned court below Rs.4,15,000/- within a period of six months but the petitioner deposited only part amount in spite of the fact that subsequently vide order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44904 of 2013 the period of deposit of the alleged amount was extended for a period of three months.

The present application has been filed for further extension of the time for deposit of the rest of the amount. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled and now he is in custody.

In the circumstances, this application has become infructuous and accordingly, it is disposed of. However, let the learned court below consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner if the petitioner deposits the balance remaining amount.

Accordingly, this modification application is disposed of.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T