Satyendra Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62556 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2021 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== SATYENDRA SAH S/o Kanhayi Sah R/o village- Bediban, P.S.- Pipra, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dinesh Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Rajvanshi Singh, Resident of Mathiya, P.S. Chhatauni, District East Champaran and permanent resident of Village Gahai, P.S. Dhaka, District East Champaran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP For the Complainant :

Mrs. Nutan Sahay, Advocate Mr. Asif Kalim, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-05-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is kept on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.C/235/2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

The petitioner is said to have taken loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant but did not return the same. It is also alleged that petitioner issued cheque of Rs.9,00,000/-, but the said cheque got bounced due to insufficient balance.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62556 of 2022(7) dt.16-05-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph-3 of the bail petition. It is further submitted that petitioner has not taken Rs.10,00,000/- rather he has taken only Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. It is submitted that petitioner has already returned Rs.29,000/- to the complainant against loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the rest amount, i.e., Rs.71,000/- shall be paid shortly.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) S.KUMAR/- U T