Patna High Court
Md. Tamimul Huk @ Tamimul HukversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the complaint was procedurally defective for ignoring Section 142 of the NI Act and therefore granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Tamimul Huk, was implicated in a complaint (No. 2986 of 2017) alleging criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on three cheques issued from a dormant account. The petitioner argued that the complaint was procedurally defective, lacking a notice under Section 142 of the NI Act and an supporting affidavit, and that the matter was essentially a civil recovery suit. The opposite party contended that the allegations were specific to the petitioner and that the complaint, though filed seven years earlier, was valid. The Court examined the statutory requirements of Section 142 NI Act and noted the absence of a notice and affidavit, concluding that the complaint was improperly instituted. Consequently, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail, subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Section 138 NI Act and Section 406 IPC is maintainable despite non‑compliance with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in view of procedural defects and the delay in filing the complaint.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138, 142
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 138 NI Act
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 142 NI Act
- bail order
- procedural defect
- cheque dishonour
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34422 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2986 Year-2017 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
Md. Tamimul Huk @ Tamimul Huk S/O Haider Ali, R/O Village-
Majhwaliya, PS- Murhurah, District Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/O Late Banarasi Sharma R/O Village- Methwaliya,
PS-Chhapra Muffasil, Distt-Saran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alka Panday, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 2986 of 2017 (Trial No.
36/2025) registered for the offences punishable under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act
3. As per complaint petition, the three different cheques
which was issued for sum of Rs. 5 lacs and two for 50,000/- each
was dishonoured on presentation, as same was issued from
dormant account.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that upon perusal of complaint petition, it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34422 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
clear that even notice was not issued against petitioner qua
dishonour of the cheques by the complainant at any point of time.
The present complaint case is also not appears supported by
affidavit which appears in violation of Priyanka Srivastava and
Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported
through (2015) 6 SCC 287. It is also pointed out that the
compliance of Section 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act appears
completely ignored while filing complaint petition.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that it may be a case
of recovery of money for which the present criminal complaint case
is completely unoccasioned and was filed by ignoring the different
provisions of law and statute as established.
6. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the complainant/opposite party no. 2, while opposing the
prayer of bail submitted that the allegation is specifically available
against this petitioner and he approached this Court after seven
years of filing the complaint.
7. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, it is pointed out
by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that earlier the
petition for anticipatory bail of petitioner was dismissed in default
by this Court, which is duly mentioned in paragraph no. 2 of the
bail petition and, thereafter, this petitioner again approached
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34422 of 2025(5) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
before the learned trial court and again his prayer of anticipatory
bail was rejected vide order dated 04.03.2025 only against which
present petition was preferred. Statement was made at bar by
learned counsel that till date neither NBW nor a process under 82
of Cr.P.C. initiated against petitioner.
8. Taking note of aforesaid factual submission and by
considering the fact that the present complaint appears lodged by
ignoring the mandatory provisions of Section 142 of N.I. Act,
where averments appears made without supporting affidavit,
accordingly, above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four
weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-9th, Saran, Chapra/concerned Court, where the
case is pending in connection with Complaint Case No. 2986 of
2017 (Trial No. 36/2025) subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.