IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56860 of 2007 AJEET KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 07.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation in the first information report is that the informant issued a bearer cheque of Rs.30,000.00 to the petitioner, but by interpolation it was made Rs.2,30,000.00. He further submits that the entire allegation is false and frivolous as the informant has issued a cheque of Rs.2,30,000.00, but that was not a bearer cheque rather it was an account payee cheque and the entire amount had been deposited in the account of the petitioner. He also submits that although in the said cheque there was a cutting at one place but above that there was a signature of the informant with regard to the said correction. He further submits that the Branch Manager, who was examined by the Police, also did not say that there was any interpolation. He further states that in fact there was an advance of Rs. 3,00,000.00 which the petitioner had paid to the informant with respect to agreement for sale but since it did not materialize the informant returned Rs.2,30,000.00 by the said cheque. He further states that the informant in the greed of taking more money from the petitioner filed the instant case as well as a money suit for the said purpose. He also avers that the petitioner is in custody since 29.09.2007. - 2 - Although it has been stated in paragraph 15 of this petition that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and instant affidavit has been sworn by Sanjay Kumar, who is brother-in-law of the petitioner, but learned counsel for the informant produces three first information reports lodged against the petitioner, out of which one is Danapur P.S. Case No.102 of 2005 filed by one Subhash Prasad, whereas, the other is Danapur P.S. Case No.326 of 2006 filed by Dharmshila Devi as well as Danapur P.S. Case No.289 of 2006 filed by Arvind Kumar, who happens to be the vendee of Dharmshila Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that said Subhash Prasad and Dharmshila Devi are uncle and aunt of the petitioner, respectively and no one was aware of the said cases nor any one appeared in the said cases nor any petition was ever filed therein and hence the petitioner or his father or his brother-in-law had no knowledge or information of the aforesaid case. It may be noted in this connection that in the case- diary also there is no mention of any such case nor it is stated therein that the petitioner had any criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition for bail is allowed. Accordingly, let the sole petitioner, namely, Ajeet Kumar be admitted to bail on executing bail bond of Rs.10,000.00(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, District Patna, in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No.525 of 2007. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. ) - 3 -