Kishun Kumar @ Kishun Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52980 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2018 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Kishun Kumar @ Kishun Prasad, Son of Late Rajeshwar Sahu, Working in S.B.I. (L.H.O.) Gandhi Maidan on the post of Sr Head Massenger, Resident of Village- Bhagwatipur Bazar, P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani, at present residing at Mohalla- Maharani Colony, House of Arbind Kumar (Shanti Niwas), P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivekanand Vivek For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anish Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 18-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2018 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner is said to have taken Rs. 10 lakhs on different dates in lieu to execute his land in favour of the father of the informant executing an agreement but he did not execute the land and on demand handed him over two cheques one of Rs.2 lakh and another of Rs.8 lakhs, which was bounced on presentation in the bank and on demand of the money the petitioner and his son indulged in the spate.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52980 of 2018(5) dt.18-12-2018 2/3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioner had neither taken Rs.10 lakhs in lieu to execute any land in favour of the father of the informant nor executed any agreement in his favour. As a matter of fact, he had taken Rs.2,40,000/- from his father for the treatment of her daughter and now he is ready to pay back the same in installments. It is also submitted that cheques are said to have been issued in the year 2012 but the aforesaid case has been lodged after six years in the year 2018, which is also time barred. It is further submitted that for the bouncing of the cheques the F.I.R.

is not maintainable rather the drawee ought to have filed complaint after giving notice to the petitioner within the stipulated period of limitation. It is also submitted that as per the case the agreement took place between the father of the informant and the petitioner, hence the informant has no locus standi to file the aforesaid case against the petitioner. The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 08.06.2018.

Considering the facts aforesaid, the above named petitioner is directed to 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 the learned Sub Judge-XVII-

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52980 of 2018(5) dt.18-12-2018 3/3 cum-A.C.J.M., Patna in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.29 of 2018, subject to condition that the petitioner would pay Rs.2,40,000/- in three equal installments of one month each after one month from the date of this order through cheque to the father of the informant without prejudice to the claim of the informant and in case of failure of payment of any installment, the learned lower court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) Trivedi/- U T