IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5380 of 2010 RAJESH SRIVASTAVA @ BUDHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 30.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code read with section 138 of the N.I. Act. According to the complainant he had paid a sum of Rs.30,100/- to the petitioner on 20.6.1995 for purchasing 100 shares of I.T.C. It is further alleged that transfer deed certificate given in lieu of those shares was also not found in order. The petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.10,000/- on 25.1.2005 in favour of the complainant which was dishonoured on 17.2.2005 and thereafter another cheque of Rs.10,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant on 15.3.2005 which too was dishonoured on 31.8.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the dispute relates to 1995 and no cognizance under section 138 N.I.Act can be taken unless notice as stipulated in section 142 of the N.I. Act is made. Counsel for the Complainant submits that the petitioner dogged him with his assurance to pay the value of the share. The petitioner at long last issued two cheques, which bounced. The complainant’s Advocate had sent a legal notice dated 5.9.2005 at the 2 first instance to the petitioner and thereafter had filed the instant case after due compliance of section 142 of the N.I. Act. In the facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court passes the following order: i) No coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner Rajesh Srivastava @ Budhan for a period of ten weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No.705 of 2005 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Buxar. ii) In the meantime the petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- in the court below. iii) If petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount within time frame, the learned court in seisin of the matter would grant bail to his satisfaction. iv) In case the petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid amount, the interim relief on expiry of ten weeks would stands vacated. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate would dispose of the bail on its own merit. If petitioner does not surrender 3 KHAN in the circumstances, the learned Magistrate would take all coercive measures against him. v) The deposit of the amount would be subject to the result of the instant case. vi) The trial court would dispose of the case within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. vii) The petitioner would cooperate in the trial and would not take adjournment save and except for valid reasons. (S.P.Singh,J)