IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87295 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ======================================================

Avinash Kumar S/o Suresh Prasad Jaiswal @ Suresh Prasad Resident at Mohalla Magadh Colony, Kurji, P.O.- Sadaquat Ashram, Patna, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP For the Informant : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate Ms. Jaya Singh, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

4 20-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case no.357 of 2025 registered under sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 469, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that she is a Director and shareholder of Hopecon Infra Projects Private Limited which is a company registered under the Companies Act. She further states that the petitioner is amongst the four Directors of the Company. Without informing the Board of Directors, the petitioner constituted a partnership firm with one Reena Kumari and used the name of the firm as Hopecon Infra Projects Private Limited which is similar to the name of the Company. He also took a GST registration and opened a Bank account in the Punjab National Bank. The partnership deed of the firm was drafted by Rajeev Kumar, who is the statutory auditor of the Company. Subsequently on 27.2.2025, the petitioner changed the name of the firm to Hopecon Infra Contractors only to create confusion in the mind of the public. Sudhanshu Kumar was also added in the partnership firm. GST return of the said firm has been filed by Rajeev Kumar. On coming to know these facts, the husband of the petitioner Uma Shankar Sharma tried to settle the matter amicably, however, the petitioner threatened to kill him. The informant finally alleges that the accused persons hatched a conspiracy to divert the business of the Company and caused wrongful loss to the Company.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the purpose of forcing him to relinquish his proposed share in the Company ie Hopecon Infra Projects Private Limited. Referring to the legal notice at Annexure P/2 series, it is submitted that while the informant and others were aware of the facts prior to the date of the notice ie 8.2.2025, the FIR came to be registered only after 6 months on 19.8.2025 without any explanation for the delay. It is submitted that the partnership firm was constituted on 6.6.2023 with the petitioner being the major shareholder. It is submitted that false allegation with respect to the petitioner having misappropriated a sum of Rs.6.60 crores has been levelled for which Patliputra P.S. Case no.421 of 2025 was filed by the informant of the present case, however, in the application for bail filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the B.N.S.S. vide Cr. Misc. no.3846 of 2026, this Court vide its order dated 17.2.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. no.3846 of 2026 while calling for the case diary from the learned Court below has directed that till further orders, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case no.421 of 2025. Learned Senior counsel further submits that more than six months after service of the legal notice, the instant FIR has been registered only with the allegation that the partnership firm has been named in such a manner as to defraud the Company. Re