Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.27468 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -503 Year- 2015 Thana -BIHTA District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, son of Late Munshi Sharma, resident of Village- Giriak, P.S.- Griak, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Prasad Ii For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Madan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Bihta P.S. Case No. 503 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Sections-406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-138 of N.I. Act.
There is allegation in the written report that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 49,000/- to the informant which got bounced with endorsement "insufficient fund".
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has informed the bank about losing of the aforesaid cheque on 05-12-2014. The counsel for informant has submitted that the cheque has been issued by the petitioner on 08-01-2015 whereas, in the information given by the petitioner in the bank on 05-12-2014, it was mentioned that the cheque book has been lost on 30-11-2014. The copy of aforesaid information given by the petitioner to the bank is annexed as Annexure-2. Counsel
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27468 of 2017 (6) dt.09-01-2018 2/2 for the informant has submitted that from Annexure-2 itself, it is apparent that the petitioner has given information to the bank on 05-122014 about losing of the aforesaid cheque book but just to commit cheating with the informant, he has issued the cheque on 08-01-2015 for the aforesaid amount and the cheque got bounced. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
The petitioner is directed to surrender in the court below and seek regular bail which will be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T