IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21472 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2443 Year-2022 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District- Purnia ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar Chaurasia @ Sanjeev Kumar son of Ajay Kumar Chaurasia R/o Village- Naya tola Gangaili Ward No-9, Ps- K. Nagar (Maranga) Dist- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Vijay Kumar Mehta son of Late Dinesh Pd. Mehta R/o Village- Naya Tola Gangaili ward No-10, Ps- K. nagar (Maranga) Top Dist- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. 2. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 2443 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per complaint, petitioner alleged to cheat complainant as cheque drawn by petitioner for sum of Rs. 55,000/- drawn at Bandhan Bank dated 26.10.2021 upon presentation was not honoured as signature of petitioner was not Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21472 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2026 2/3 available at proper place. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the entire allegation raised in the background of dishonouring of cheque, which was returned to the complainant as signature of petitioner was not drawn at specified place of the cheque. It is submitted that in fact the cheque was never presented before the bank because no bank memo qua presentation of cheque is available on record. It is submitted that just to harass the petitioner, the present criminal complaint case was lodged. Learned counsel further submitted that entire complaint prosecution initiated without compliance of Section 142 of N.I. Act. 5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no. 2, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the petitioner cheated for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- against purchase of paddy from the complainant. 7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as the narration of the complaint prima facie suggest that same was lodged in the background of dishonouring of cheque which not appears even supported by bank memo, coupled with the fact that even the complaint not appears to be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21472 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2026 3/3 filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act without any prima facie compliance of Section 142 of the N.I. Act, accordingly, above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with Complaint Case No. 2443 of 2022 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. veena/- (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) U T