SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 6717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Soni Shrivastava, J
Rohit Kumar @ Ghanshyam Bharti
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90852 of 2025 | Complaint Case No. 444 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ayush
For the Respondents: Satyendra Prasad

In cases involving financial transactions arising from agreements where alternative civil remedies are available and the accused has undergone significant custody, bail may be granted.

Headnote:The case involves offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts pertain to a land sale agreement where the complainant alleged that Rs. 38 lakhs were paid to the petitioner, but subsequent cheques issued by the petitioner bounced due to insufficient funds. The court found that the dispute primarily involves a financial transaction. The primary issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the nature of the financial dispute and the period of incarceration. The court reasoned that since the matter involves a financial transaction for which alternative civil remedies are available, and considering the petitioner has been in custody since 23.09.2024 while the case is pending before charge evidence, bail is appropriate. let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 444 of 2016

Table of Content
1. identification of charges and factual basis of the complaint regarding financial default. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding partial repayment of funds and the impact of criminal antecedents on bail. (Para 4 , 5)
3. grant of bail in financial disputes where civil remedies exist and custody is prolonged. (Para 6)

ORAL ORDER

3 27-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act .

3. As per the complaint, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant and complainant gave about Rs. 38 lakhs to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner gave several cheques to the complainant and all of them got bounced due to insufficient fund.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case relates to financial transaction between the petitioner and the complainant on account of an agreement with regard to sale of land for which Rs. 38 lakhs in total was given to the petitioner. However, Annexure-p/3 which is an agreement between the parties has been pointed out wherein it has been stated that Rs. 33 lakhs is being returned to the opposite party no. 2. and the petitioner is even ready to return rest Rs. 5 lakhs to the opposite party no. 2. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, opposes the bail application on the ground that he still denies to have received such payment. It is further submitted that the petitioner has several other criminal antecedents. In response, it is submitted that the petitioner is on bail in the other cases.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the matter involves financial transaction for which recourse can be taken to alternative civil remedies, further the petitioner is in custody 23.09.2024 and the case is pending on before charge evidence, let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Complaint Case No. 444 of 2016, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate in the conclusion of trial by appearing on each and every date till conclusion of trial and if the petitioner does not appear on two consecutive dates without any substantial and satisfactory reason, the learned court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top