IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37130 of 2008 DHANANJAY PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 16.12.2008 Heard. Some of the admitted fact is that the petitioner dealswith the foodgrains and while so dealing there was purchase of 18 quintals of rice from the informant by the petitioner. It is not denied that the petitioner purchased grains from the informant and did not pay up the money except Rs.1,000/- on account of first instalment to the informant , when the informant had approached the Police Station with the grievance that the petitioner was not paying up the price of his usufructs. The informant has given a list of names of a dozen of farmers who have similarly sold foodgrains to the petitioner and they were also not paid prices of the usufructs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through some of the Paragraphs of the petition in which some decisions of this Court have been referred to and has submitted that it was an agreement between the informant and the petitioner which could be enforced by civil laws and it could never constitute any offence. I differ from the decisions of the Benches of Court. This petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner pays up the amount which could be due to the informant, the court below shall grant bail to the petitioner to his own satisfaction. SKBOSE (Dharnidhar Jha) - 2 -