Sumit Kumar @ Bittu Mehta v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64610 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2328 Year-2023 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar ====================================================== Sumit Kumar @ Bittu Mehta S/o Rajendra Prasad Mahto R/o vill - Maheshpur Sotipar, Korha, P.S. - Korha, Distt. - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Binod Kumar Sah aged 46 years S/o Late Gopal Sah Resident of Village Maheshpur Sotipar, P.S. Korha, Katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad,APP Mr.Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Adv.for OP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case, punishable for offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner took Makhana (fox-nut) from the complainant and assured him to pay the amount after selling the same in market, but he did not pay the amount. When the complainant asked him to pay the money, the petitioner gave two cheques of Rs. 6,82,000/- each to the complainant, but on presentation, the cheques got dishonoured.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64610 of 2024(6) dt.03-07-2025 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, cheques were issued by the petitioner, as security purpose, as petitioner used to purchase fox nut from the complainant, but the complainant, due to some ill-motive, has falsely implicated petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there is specific allegation against petitioner of committing forgery of Rs. 13,64,000/- with the opposite party no. 2/complainant and the cheques, which were issued by petitioner, also got dischonored due to stop payment order.
6. Considering the same, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T