IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7555 of 2011 DAYANIDHI SINGH @ D.N. SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 21.04.2011. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, informant and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation is that the petitioner being the owner of M/S. Civilech Construction Pvt. Ltd. Co., received sand from the informant and subsequently issued a cheque in May, 2009 for Rs. 2,00,000/- but in September, 2009 the informant came to know that the payments have been stopped at the behest of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. are not made out because there was no intention to cheat the informant from very inception. The present case appears to be contractual in nature between the parties. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of malicious intention since after issuance of cheque the payments have been stopped. Learned counsel for the informant submits that though the case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is not made out but the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. are made out since after issuance of cheque payments have maliciously been stopped. Considering the contractual nature of accusation in which the intention from very inception can not be perceived to be bad on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No. 675 of 2010 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M. Rohtas at Sasaram, subject to 3 the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)