Avinash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27429 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2025 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna ====================================================== Avinash Kumar, S/o Suresh Prasad @ Suresh Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of - Magadh Colony, Kurji Sadakat Ashram, 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.Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. The accused/petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 430 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of BNS.
3. As per FIR, petitioner alleged to cheat informant, who is none but his landlord by means of forged documents, making tenancy disputed.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27429 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 2/3 senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the Director of M/s Hopcon Infra Projects Private Limited and also the partner of M/s Hopcon Infra Projects Limited also, as established under Partnership Act. It is submitted that the landlord/informant was under impression that his flat was given to company M/s Hopcon Infra Projects Private Limited against rent and not to M/s Hopcon Infra Projects Limited, a partnership firm. The rent to the informant was paid by partnership firm of the petitioner, which was duly received by him. It is submitted that subsequently, the aforesaid misunderstanding was shorted out and, dispute as surfaced between the parties was compromised.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted by Mr. Mauli that the dispute is basically civil in nature, for which the present criminal prosecution is completely unoccasioned and unwarranted.
6. Learned APP, duly assisted by learned counsel Mr. Sammir Kumar, appearing on behalf of the informant, while opposing the prayer of bail could not disputed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27429 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 3/3 aforesaid fact and also affirmed the factum of compromise, as submitted aforesaid by Mr. Mauli.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as the disputes primarily appears civil in nature between the parties, which has been already compromised, as submitted, accordingly, above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-X, Patna/concerned Court, where the case is pending in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 430 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) veena/- U T