Vinod Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57630 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1297 Year-2018 Thana- BHABHU(KAIMUR) COMPLAIN C District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Gupta S/O Bhikhkhi Sah Resident of Village- Bhabua Ward No- 11, P.S.- Bhabua, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Satyendra Narayan Singh @ Satyendra Yadav S/O Radha Yadav Resident of Village- Bhabua Ward No- 20, P.S.- Bhabua, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 24-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1297 of 2018 instituted under Sections 420 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution story, the complainant has alleged that he is the supplier of rice and had given rice to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/- for which cheques were issued but the same bounced forcing him to file the complaint. As per the documents available on record, the complainant had also given a legal notice to the petitioner who chose to not to reply to the same.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57630 of 2022(2) dt.24-01-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a cheque bouncing case no cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been taken and further that there is discrepancies in his statement inasmuch as allegation of Rs.26,00,000/- is there but in the solemn affirmation, he had stated about Rs.6,000,35/-. Having gone through the complaint, it is clear that the petitioner after having taken the rice from the complainant to the tune Rs.26,00,000/- cheated him by giving cheques which ultimately bounced and in that background this Court does not deem it fit and proper to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail, accordingly petition stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T