Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31947/2026bail rejected

Aman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-13Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31947 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1354 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Aman Kumar S/o Bachchan Thakur Resident of Mohalla- Patel Nagar Road No. 6 Babu Chowk, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Ranjan Kumar S/o Late Collector Singh R/o Baba Chowk, Patel Nagar, Road no. 6, P.S.- Patliputra, Dist.- Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Girish Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.1354 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that petitioner has taken Rs. 1,75,000/- rupees from the complainant with condition that he will return the said money with in 08 to 10 months but petitioner has not returned the said money to the complainant. The petitioner has given a cheque and the said cheque was dishonored by the bank due to insufficient balance. After that complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner but petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31947 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 not replied on legal notice. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint petition before the court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has returned the total amount.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the processes under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected.

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J) Prakash Narayan U T