IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11490 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAWAT @ SANJAY JALANDHARA, SON OF LATE BADRI PRASAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHARASHI BADRI PHARMACEUTICALS BAIDYA BHAWAN, SHILP COLONY, JHOTWAR, P.S. JAIPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)…………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ABHISHEK KUMAR, SON OF SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF ROAD NO.8A, RAJENDRA NAGAR, P.S. KADAMKUAN IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh & Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Advocates. For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P.. For the Complainant : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate. ---------- 2. 30.4.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the main culprit behind the dispute is one Anil Kumar Gupta and prior to filing of this complaint case, the company of the petitioner had also filed a complaint case against the 2 aforesaid Anil Kumar Gupta as well as the complainant of this case which bears Complaint Case No.33 of 2008 and in that case, cognizance had also been taken and revision filed against the aforesaid order of taking cognizance had also been dismissed. It has also been submitted that even if it is assumed that the cheque was given by the petitioner for business, it is stated in the complaint that the business continued smoothly for some time, however, subsequently, some dispute arose. It is alleged that the petitioner started dealing with the some other company and as a compromise formula and it is alleged that such other company had given a cheque of Rs.28 lacs against the articles which were received from the company of the complainant and that cheque had bounced. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with the compromise in between them and so far as the petitioner’s company is concerned, it is only a matter of dispute with regard to the business and account and the petitioner had remained in custody since 6th of January, 2010. Learned counsel submits that no cognizance had been taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, so far as against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that 3 the petitioner through Anil Kumar Gupta entered into a contract , received Rs.28 lacs and thereafter business continued for some time times and thereafter he negotiated with other company due to which huge loss had been incurred upon the company and as a compromise formula materials had been given to M/s. Maharshi Badri Pharmaceuticals of which accused Nil Kamal is the Proprietor and in lieu thereof he issued a cheque of Rs.28 lacs, which has bounced. However, it is accepted on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner is not the author of the aforesaid cheque which has bounced. It has also been submitted that several other cases are pending against the petitioner, however, it is fairly submitted that in one case the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, Sanjay Kumawat @ Sanjay Jalandhara, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri A.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No.2120(c) of 2008 with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be a local or respected person. Further, the petitioner shall remain well represented on each 4 and every date during the course of the trial in the court below falling on two consecutive dates without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)