Rintu Singh @ Vivek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82721 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-585 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== RINTU SINGH @ VIVEK KUMAR SON OF LATE NAND KISHOR SINGH R/O VILLAGE- SIKARIYA, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DIST.-PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

BITTU SINGH SON OF MAHENDRA SINGH R/O VILLAGEBAHPURA, P.S.- BIHTA, DIST.- PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Sonvadra, Advocate Mr. Pratik Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant and the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. As per the complaint case, the petitioner took the consideration amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- but did not deliver the tractor and trailer to the complainant which was purchased by the complainant from the petitioner and when the complainant demanded the money back, this petitioner gave him cheque that got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82721 of 2023(2) dt.18-01-2024 2/2

4. It is submitted that on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the F.I.R. it is not clear as to who has given the cheque to the complainant. He further submits that at best, it is a case of breach of contract and mere breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 585(c) of 2022, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T