Gopi Sah v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55480 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2772 Year-2018 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District- Vaishali ====================================================== GOPI SAH S/O LATE PURUSHOTAM SAH R/O VILLAGEJHAMANGANJ, P.S- JANDAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.
UMESH KUMAR JIASWAL S/O LATE RAM BABU CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGE- MAHINDWARA, P.S- MAHNAR, DISTT.- VAISHALI. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vasant Vikas, Advocate Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. The present case arises out of a complaint petition. The petitioner and the complainant were closed friends and, as a matter of fact, the complainant runs a non-banking company. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the petitioner and, in lieu thereof, the petitioner had
2/4 given blank cheque as security, which was, subsequently, misused by the complainant by putting an amount of Rs.5 lakhs.
4. By order dated 29.01.2025, with consent of the parties, the matter was sent to the Patna High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center for amicable settlement between the parties but the said process has failed.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint case and the statement of the complainant on S.A. shows that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was paid to the petitioner in cash but there is no chit of paper or any documentary evidence in proof of the said payment. However, in order to show his bona fide, the petitioner is still agreeable to give an amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs to the complainant on the assertion that this is the only amount due at his end to be paid to be complainant. With payment of this amount, according to the petitioner, there is no other grievance left behind the complainant.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs is due to the petitioner and the cheque given by him also bounced, for
3/4 which cognizance has been taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that the matter relates to money transaction and the petitioner is showing bona fide by returning Rs.1.50 lakhs to the complainant, I am inclined to grant privilege of provisional bail to the petitioner. The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as first installment at the time of furnishing his bail bonds and would show/file a receipt thereof of such payment to the complainant. In the next two months, the petitioner would be paying the two installments of Rs.50,000/- each.
7. In such view of the matter, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail provisionally, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case No.2772 of 2018, subject to the condition as laid
4/4 down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. The learned Court below is directed to confirm the bail bonds of the petitioner after payment of last two installments of Rs.50,000/- each.
(Soni Shrivastava, J.) devendra/- U T