Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63942 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2019 Thana- DHAKA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
ABHAY KUMAR @ ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Son of Dhrup Singh Resident of Barharwa Lakhansen, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran 2.
Amit Kumar @ Aditya Kumar Son of Dhrup Singh Resident of Barharwa Lakhansen, P.S.- Dhaka, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Asif Kalim For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 187 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant, who is an agriculturist, lodged an FIR, stating therein that the petitioners and his brother, who are owner of the brick kiln, demanded Rs.6,46,000/- from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63942 of 2019(10) dt.20-07-2022 2/3 informant. He provided that money to them but they did not return. On persistent demand, petitioner no. 1 issued a cheque of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the informant, but it was bounced. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the year 2015, petitioner no. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of the wife of the informant in lieu of Rs. 6,46,000/-. He has submitted further that the consideration money was Rs.3,00,000/-, to which the learned counsel for the informant has opposed and submitted that the sale deed was executed in the year 2015. The recitals of the sale deed are explicit and it has been written that the petitioner no. 1, vendee has already paid the entire consideration money to the vendor, as such, Rs.
6,46,000/-, as mentioned in the FIR, is not the consideration money neither the sale deed was executed in lieu of that amount. The sale deed was executed in the year 2015 and the cheque was issued in the year 2019. The recitals of sale deed are explicit. The vendee has mentioned in the sale deed that she had already paid the entire consideration money.
There is the allegation of issuance of cheque, which was bounced, is only against petitioner no. 1, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63942 of 2019(10) dt.20-07-2022 3/3 allegation against him that he issued the cheque, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
Let petitioner no. 2, in the event of his arrest or surrender, within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahna at Dhaka, District-East Champaran in connection with Dhaka P.S. Case No. 187 of 2019, subject to condition as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner(s) 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