Dismissed

Sushant Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Oct 2022CR. MISC./22687/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC dismissed the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail under Sections 409 and 420 IPC in a cheque-dishonour case. Finding the cheque drawn for the petitioner's company, the court confirmed the provisional bail granted on 24.05.2022, noting the petitioner had not encashed the cheque personally.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The provisional bail granted by the court on 24.05.2022 was confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

Sushant Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22687 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-633 Year-2017 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur

¶3

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

¶4

SUSHANT KUMAR JHA SON OF SRI PRIYA RANJAN JHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAKRAMI NAGARPARA UTTAR, P.S.- BHAWANIPUR (BIHPUR), DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandad Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari Mr. Madan Mohan Ms. Pallavi Pandey ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶8

7 12-10-2022

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

In compliance of the order dated 28.09.2022, the petitioner and the informant along with their respective counsels are present, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the cheque was issued in name of the company namely, Nandlal and Company Products Private Limited and the petitioner being salesman had only persuaded the informant for depositing the amount in lieu of supplying the mustard oil but

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22687 of 2021(7) dt.12-10-2022 2/2

¶13

the company cheated the informant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that admittedly petitioner had not encashed the cheque and the cheque was also drawn in favour of the Company and not in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware that the Company would cheat him and his prospective investors.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but are not able to meet the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was in the name of the company and not in the name of the petitioner, as such, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 24.05.2022 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

¶16

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶17

GauravSinha/-

¶18

U T

Sushant Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushant Kumar Jha 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

Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rohit Raj Vs The State of Bihar

Parmanand Jha Vs the State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar @ Kaju Vs The State of Bihar

Ashtosh Kumar @ Anshu Kumar @ Anshu Patel Vs the State of Bihar