M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant on service of notice to him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act that too in the year 2011. While alleged offence said to have taken place in the year 2006 onwards but the complainant never lodged F.I.R. giving out that by torturing him cheques/documents had been taken. The facts aforesaid clearly shows that F.I.R. against the petitioner is an out-come of the notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the petitioner may be extended benefit of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have opposed this bail application. However, learned counsel for the complainant could not explain as to why the F.I.R. was not lodged then and there at the time of occurrence.;