Sachin v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15573 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Sachin S/o Sukhpal Singh R/o Village - Noorpur Muglan, Dhadola (46), Sector 29, P.S - Bapoli, District - Panipat, State - Haryana 2.
Anju W/o Manindra R/o Village - Noorpur Muglan, Dhadola (46), Sector 29, P.S - Bapoli, District - Panipat, State - Haryana ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Lal, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ms. Pratibha Srivastava, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no. 2 is a woman and the informant alleges that he started a hatchery at Panipat in the year 2012 and during course of business came in contact with Akhilesh who was also in the same business at Jehanabad, further Akhilesh told him that his
2/4 business is not performing well, thus, requested him to become a partner, thus informant became partner with Akhilesha nd invested money in the business being looked after by Akhilesh, further in the year 2019 Akhilesh left the business and handed over the hatchery farm to the informant on lease for 15 years in lieu of rent of Rs. 2,15000/- per month, next alleges that he was looking for someone who could run his business at Jehanabad, when his brother-in-law, Sukhpal, maternal nephew Manindra, Sachin, Anju and Surendra approached him and requested to keep Manindra as manager who was unemployed, thus, he appointed Manindra as Manager, next alleges that Manindra started misappropriating money and deposited an amount of Rs.
60 Lakhs in the account of his father Sachin and Anju, but he does not have proof with regard to the same presently and also came to know that Surendra and Satvir, cousin of Manindra used to come to Jehanabad and in connivance had sent Rs. 6070 Lakhs in cash, further when informant informed that he is coming to Jehanabad for checking the account in 2021, Manindra burnt all the documents with the help of Mahesh and threw in Dardha river.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
3/4 the informant being brother and wife of Manindra. It is further submitted that thrust of the allegation is against Manindra, but then it is also submitted that if the allegations are perused carefully, it would manifest that informant alleges that an amount of Rs. 60-70 Lakhs was credited in the account of father, wife and brother of Manindra, but then the informant himself states that presently he does not have any proof with regard to the same, as such, the entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is next submitted that this amply demonstrates that the case has been instituted in haste only to coerce Manindar and his family into submission so that they part with fanciful demand of the informant. It is next submitted that if what has been alleged is true without admitting in that event the informant ought to have approached the Court of competent civil jurisdiction for getting the issue of account adjudicated.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
4/4 bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 493 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T