Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11122 of 2012 ====================================================== Shiv Mangal Yadav, son of Baliram Yadav, resident of village-Finigee, P.S.-Bihiya, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 14-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with a case in which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is submitted that admittedly the complainant and the petitioner were friends. They started business together. In course of transaction of business a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was given to the complainant. A perusal of complaint itself would show that there was no legally enforceable debt. The statutory notice in terms of Section 138 of N.I. Act was never issued. The Magistrate erroneously took cognizance under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Looking at the nature of allegation, ingredients of the offence under [STATUTE] would not be attracted. Be that as it may, considering the nature of allegation, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11122 of 2012 (2) dt.14-03-2012 2 / 2 2 facts and circumstances of the case, let the 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/communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sumit Ranjan, the learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class at Ara in connection with Trial No. 4990 of 2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 294C of 2010 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. as also subject to the following conditions: (i) That both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner who will give separate affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (iii) That he shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he will take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he will immediately inform the court and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (iv) That liberty is given to the State/complainant to make an appropriate application for modifying/recalling the order granting bail, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.