Vikash Gautam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70459 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2383 Year-2013 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Vikash Gautam S/O Shri Vijay Kumar Das Resident Of Village- Road No-12, Ganga Vihar Colony, Near Ashadeep Viklang School, P.S.- Digha, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Urmila Devi W/O Manoj Kumar Yadav Resident Of Village- Kolhaura, P.S.- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

Mr. RK Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the NI Act.

3. As per complainant, this petitioner who was manager of Jai Maa Construction Pvt. Ltd. received cash Rs. 5 lacs from this complainant for booking one BHK flat near Saguna More. But later on refused to make agreement and issued five cheques of Rs. 1 lac each which could not be encashed as the account of petitioner was found closed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the General Manager of the firm and it is co-accused Sanjay Kumar Singh, who is owner of the firm and he received the amount. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State as well as the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70459 of 2022(7) dt.19-08-2024 2/2 opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner is author of five cheque of Rs. 1 lac each which was given to the complainant and later on the same could not be encashed as the account of petitioner was found closed.

6. Considering the nature of accusation, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T