Sudhir Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10707 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Sudhir Kumar Sinha Son of Late Baidyanath Prasad Sinha Resident of A -56, Shobha Bhawan, Indirapuri Colony, Phulwari District -Patna 2.
Rahul sinha @ Rahul Kumar Sinha Son of Sudhir Kumar Sinha Resident of A -56, Shobha Bhawan, Indirapuri Colony, Phulwari District -Patna ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the F.I.R., are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 145 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506/34 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the 'B.N.S.').
3. As per FIR, petitioners, after receiving advance of Rs. Eight Lakhs, failed to supply the Conoweeder machines (an agricultural equipment) to the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the amount, as received by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10707 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026 2/3 petitioners from the informant on same very day, was transferred to the account of M/s Agrotech Industries. In support of his submission, learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court towards the documents which is Annexure P/2 series of the present bail petition.
5. It is submitted tat petitioners are the franchisee of M/s Agrotech Industries and due to business hardship Conoweeder machine could not supply to the informant within the time frame by M/s Agrotech Industries. It is submitted that beside that petitioners are also the business partners of the informant and, moreover, facial perusal of the FIR suggest that dispute is civil in nature for which the present criminal case is completely unoccasioned and unwarranted. Petitioners claimed clean antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of the fact as dispute primarily appears civil in nature, accordingly, both above-named petitioners, who are men of clean antecedent, in the event of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10707 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026 3/3 arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya Ji/concerned court in connection with Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 145 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.S.").
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/- U T