Allowed

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Jul 2022CR. MISC./22174/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted provisional bail to the petitioner in a quashing case. The court directed the petitioner to repay the balance amount to the informant in 12 equal instalments over three years as a condition for bail confirmation. Failure to comply would lead to bail cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Provisional bail granted on furnishing a bond with two sureties, conditioned on payment of balance amount in 12 instalments over three years.

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradip Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22174 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2020 Thana- FATUA District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradip Kumar S/O Late Ram Prasad @ Ram Prasad Lal R/O Village- Bankipur, P.S.- Fatuha, District- Patna ... Petitioner/S

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar ... Opposite Party/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, No.2, APP For the informant Mr. DN Singh, Advocate ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶9

9 12-07-2022

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and

¶11

the informant.

¶12

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶13

Prosecution case is that Rs. 26 lakhs was obtained by the petitioner from the informant as loan with the promise of returning it as and when the same would be demanded. The money was not returned, despite the informant asking for the same. Later, a cheque of Rs. 13 lakhs was paid to the informant, but the same bounced because of paucity of funds. Four other cheques given by the petitioner also could not be encashed because of paucity of fund.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner by filing

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22174 of 2021(9) dt.12-07-2022 2/2

¶16

supplementary affidavit submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire balance amount of Rs. 11,45.000/- at the rate of Rs.one lac quarterly.

¶17

Considering the facts of the case as well as the undertaking of the petitioner, in the event of arrest/surrender within six weeks from today, let the petitioner mentioned above be enlarged on provisional bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Fatuha Police Station Case No. 469 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the following condition:-

¶18

Petitioner would pay the entire balance amount of Rs. 11,45.000/- to the informant in 12 equal instalments in three years starting from today.

¶19

If the petitioner fulfils this condition within the said time period, the provisional bail would be confirmed by the Court below itself, failing which the Court below shall cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

¶20

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶21

shashi/- U T

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradip Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradip Kumar 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

Rajiv Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Jayant Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Hare Ram Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Sanni Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mithlesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar