Allowed

Ram Sewak Mahto v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC24 Aug 2018CR. MISC./48995/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to Ram Sewak Mahto, Chairman of a Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, accused in a cheque dishonour and cheating case, subject to furnishing bonds and sureties to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bon. Birushreepuram, Begusarai.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai.

Ram Sewak Mahto Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.48995 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2180 Year- 2016 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBEGUSARAI

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ram Sewak Mahto Son of late Ram Lakhan Mahto resident of VillageBariyarpur East, P.S. Khodavandpur, District- Begusarai(Bihar).

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

Rajeev Kumar Son of Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta Prop. of M/S Gitanjanli Rice Mill, Teghra, R/o Village- Cheriya Bariyarpur,P.S. Cheriy, Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai (Bihar), At Present Bishwanath Nagar, P.S. Town, District- Begusarai.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.N.P. Sinha

¶11

Mr. Mira Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Renuka Ratnakar

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 24-08-2018 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

¶14

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

The petitioner has been in custody since 06.06.2018 in connection with C.R. No. 2180 C of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶16

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he is the Chairman of Bariarpur East, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Bariarpur East, P.S. Khudavandpur and the other co-accused Kundan Kumar is the Manger of the said PACS. The allegation against the petitioner

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48995 of 2018 (2) dt.24-08-2018

¶18

2/4

¶19

is that the accused persons issued a Cheque of Rupees Six Lakh Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only (Rs. 6,07,500/-) of the

¶20

Co-operative Bank bearing Cheque No. B.C.C.B No. 7250 which was jointly signed by both the persons and issued under PACS Account No. 00022 in the name of M/s Geetanjli Rice Mill, Proprietor, Rajeev Kumar, requesting for early supply of rice. The case of the complainant further, is that the said Cheque was deposited but could not be encashed as the same was returned with a reason “Title of account and full account number required”. The further allegation is that though the complainant approached the present petitioner to rectify the Cheque and issue the corrected Cheque number, the accused persons refused to do same against the supply of rice by the complainant. Learned

¶21

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire complaint against the petitioner is false and fabricated, inasmuch as the petitioner had never purchased any rice from the complainant and the duty of the petitioner is to purchase paddy from the farmers and to supply purchased paddy to any rice mills which is certified by the Bihar State Food Corporation and allotted by the District Officer, after entering into the written agreement with the said rice mills. It is further submitted that the

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48995 of 2018 (2) dt.24-08-2018

¶23

3/4

¶24

present PACS of which the petitioner is Chairman had never entered into any agreement with the complainant rice mill, rather it was attached with one M/s Rakesh Ranjan Rice Mill, Chakwa, as has been allotted to them by the District Officer. Thus, the entire allegation is false and malicious and should not be entertained. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a responsible functionary of the PACS and will not evade or abscond if extended the privilege of bail.

¶25

Having considered the submissions of the petitioner and that the role of the PACS, as submitted, was merely to purchase paddy from the farmers and does not purchase rice from any one, the allegations could only be best tested at the stage of trial.

¶26

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall co-operate in any further investigation and also in the trial, if extended the privilege of bail.

¶27

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1^st , Begusarai, in

¶28

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48995 of 2018 (2) dt.24-08-2018

¶29

4/4

¶30

connection with C.R. No. 2180 C of 2016.

¶31

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶32

Saif/-

¶33

U T

Ram Sewak Mahto v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak Mahto v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Mohit Kumar @ Dhiraj Kumar @ Dindolia Vs The State Of Bihar

Birendra Yadav and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Manjeet Kumar Rai @ Manjeet Kumar @ Manjeet Kum @ Manjeet Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Mukesh Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar