Allowed

Santosh Kumar Bhartiya v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC11 Jan 2019CR. MISC./80070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving allegations of cheating and dishonour of cheque. The petitioner is allowed to surrender within four weeks subject to furnishing a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the CJM.

Santosh Kumar Bhartiya Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.80070 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2017 Thana- BARGAINIA District- Sitamarhi

¶3

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

¶4

Santosh Kumar Bhartiya S/o Yugal Kishore Bhartiya R/o-Ward No.11, Lohapatti, Chakmahila, P.S-Sitamarhi, Distt.-Sitamarhi, proprietor of Sumit Sari Bhandar, Sitamarhi, P.S-Sitamarhi, Distt.-Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwary 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 11-01-2019 Heard both sides.

¶10

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bairgania P.S. Case No.336 of 2017 registered under Sections 323, 504, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The informant, a cloth shop owner, alleged that he used to take Sarees from the shop of the petitioner. The informant gave different cheques to the petitioner on assurance to deposit the same after sometime so that the informant may deposit sufficient amount in his account. It is alleged that the petitioner took cash of Rs.1,50,000/- but did not return the cheque issued earlier in favour of the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive any cash from the informant and

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.80070 of 2018(2) dt.11-01-2019 2/2

¶14

informant wanted to misappropriate the money of the petitioner. There appears that some dispute arose during business transaction. The petitioner denied to have received any cash amount in lieu of cheque earlier issued by the informant.

¶15

Having considered the facts aforesaid, let petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order 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 CJM, Sitamarhi in connection with Bairgania P.S. Case No.336 of 2017, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶16

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶17

S.KUMAR/-

¶18

U T

Santosh Kumar Bhartiya v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Bhartiya v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunil Sah @ Sunil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Parshuram Shah Vs The State Of Bihar

Vikash Sah @ Vikash Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Sri Niwas Mahto and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Abhilasha Pal @ Abhilasha Pol @ Abhilasha Paul Vs The State Of Bihar