IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27384 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-903 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District- Patna ====================================================== Sachin Bharti Son of Dular Chandra Singh Resident of Bindula Bhawan, Flat No.-1460 Lakhni Bigaha, Post.-Khagaul, P.S.-Danapur, Distt.-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Prabhakar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 6 21-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 903 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section-138 of N.I. Act and under Section-420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per allegation, the complainant is a retired BSF personnel and his house was situated near house of the petitioner. Apprising himself to be a certified broker of share market, the petitioner took the complainant in his confidence and demanded Rs. 10,000,00/- (ten lakhs). He procured money from the complainant and in lieu of payment of money, he issued two cheques described in the complaint petition which Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27384 of 2024(6) dt.21-02-2025 2/2 were dishonoured by the bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has given only 76,000/- to the petitioner online and out of which, he has returned Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant and his friend with the help of other unknown people have plundered four blank cheques and forced the petitioner to sign over those plundered blank and undated cheques. 5. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner has not cheated only the complainant but also some other persons and he has the criminal antecedent of two cases as described in paragraph-3 of the petition. 6. It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. A.K.V.//- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T