IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43053 of 2010 KEDAR NATH TEWARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ 4/ 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Supply of wood logs and its non-returned has been based for accusation under Section 406 of the I.P.C. Defence is that there was business transaction in between the parties. In that continuation, petitioner intended to shift his business to Kolkatta. Complainant agreed to purchase his land from Saw Mill and while its part consideration money was paid, the price of logs was adjusted that is disputed on the ground that original agreement to sell deed mentions about payment of cash. Further while replied complainant’s notice by this petitioner acceptance is part through demand draft and part in cash. It is specifically submitted that this much happened only due to being parties very close to each other. Admittedly, all the payment for Rs. 10 lakh was not paid in cash. According to the complainant, part through demand draft and part through cash and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that document is there that part of the money was transferred from petitioner’s account to complainant’s account that goes to show that what was scribed in the deed was not the real fact and in that only while the matter was investigated by the I.O., final form is submitted and now on complaint-cum-protest, cognizance is taken. 2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioner for bail is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Complaint Case No. 929 of 2010 above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Katihar subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)