IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23940 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2024 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad ======================================================

1. Md. Abrar Ahmad @ Abrar Ahmad S/o Late Irfan Ahmad R/o Vill- Farastar Belthara Raod, P.S.- Ubhaon, Dist- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh)

2. Most. Shahjadi Ahmad @ Shahjadi W/o Late Irfan Ahmad R/o Vill- Farastar Belthara Raod, P.S.- Ubhaon, Dist- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh)

3. Tipu Sultan Haidar Ali R/o Vill- Aundi, P.S.- Ubhaon, Dist- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh)

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chandan Kumar S/o Anil Prasad Gupta R/o Vill- Chapri, P.S.- Obra, Dist-

Aurangabad-824124

2. Chandan Kumar Anil Prasad Gupta Resident of Village Chapri PS Obra District Aurangabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

10 11-02-2026 Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared through virtual mode.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Obra Police Station Case No. 334 of 2024, disclosing offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant is a proprietor of Balaji Trader, a firm dealing in the sale and purchase of grains. On January 15, 2024, the informant entered into a business deal with Abrar Enterprises, in which petitioner no. 1 is the proprietor, petitioner no. 2 is the partner and mother of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 is the employee of the firm. As per the understanding, the paddy worth Rs. 13.59 crore was supplied to the firm between January 16, 2024 and June 25, 2024. A sum of Rs. 11 crore was paid by the petitioners in installments, but a sum of Rs. 2.59 crore remained unpaid. When the informant attempted to contact petitioner no. 1, his mobile was found switched off.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case with oblique motive in order to put pressure upon them to pay the sum of Rs. 2.59 crore. The allegation made in the FIR gives rise to a civil dispute and no element of criminality is involved therein. It has further been submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that from the very inception, the intention of the petitioners was to deceive or cheat the informant. The very fact that out of the total amount claimed by the informant, the petitioner's firm has paid 11 crore goes to show that the intention of the petitioners was not to cheat and deceive the informant. A civil dispute has been given a colour of criminal case in abuse of the process of the court. Referring to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 informant, learned counsel submits that the amount referred in the FIR has been changed from 13.59 crores to 14,71,59,272./-.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioners received the consignment of paddy from the informant worth several crores and with an intention to deceive and cheat the informant has misappropriated a huge amount. On the guarantee of the informant, the farmers of the locality made available a huge quantity of paddy for supplying it to the petitioners, but the petitioners, after having received paddy, paid in installments, failed to pay the further amount.

7. Learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioners have filed a supplementary affida