Manikant Giri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62653 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2021 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== MANIKANT GIRI S/o Devendra Giri, R/o Village- Ward no. 05, Dumariya, Mehura, Distt- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-02-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bagha P.S. Case No. 337 of 2021 registered for offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 138 of the N.I. Act.

The informant, Manoj Kumar Giri has made allegation that the informant gave Rs.3,15,000/- (three lakhs, fifteen thousand rupees) to the petitioner in presence of the witnesses and the petitioner issued three cheques, which were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62653 of 2022(2) dt.08-02-2023 2/2 dishonoured by the bank. The legal notice was sent to the petitioner and after receipt of that notice, he threatened the informant and denied to return his money.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice was received after two months of dishonour of the cheques. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner is involved in five other cases of similar nature and he received money from the informant and when the informant demanded his money, he threatened him.

There are five cases of similar nature against the petitioner. In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned hereinabove, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T