Saima Khalid v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36772 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2025 Thana- PATRAKARNAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== Saima Khalid Daughter of Khalid Ahmad Resident of B/602, H.B. Tower, AIIMS Road, Phulwarisharif, Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Isshan Siingh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is apprehending his arrest in connection with Patrakarnagar P.S. Case No. 418 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per FIR, petitioner, who is known to the informant invested Rs. 25 Lakhs with petitioner and her company known as M/s Wayfareroworld Advent Pvt. Ltd., duly registered under Companies Act, 1956, but the promised return of the aforesaid investment was never paid to the informant and upon several demands, only Rs. 1.5 Lakhs was returned to her.
4. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in fact the money on behalf of the informant was invested with M/s Wayfareroworld
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36772 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026 2/3 Advent Pvt. Ltd., where this petitioner is also one of the director. It is pointed out that the company was not arrayed as an accused by the informant in the present case.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Dikshit that against invested amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs, total share of 3,333 units was allotted to the informant, each equivalent to Rs. 750/-.
6. It is further argued that during Covid-19, the company suffered huge loss and, therefore, the company was not in position to give desired return against investment, which is the sole reason for lodging this criminal case, which is completely unoccasioned and unwarranted considering the nature of dispute, which is purely civil in nature.
7. While concluding argument, it is submitted that petitioner is a lady of clean antecedent.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant, while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that it is a clear case of breach of trust as relying upon the promise of the petitioner out of her old acquaintance informant invested Rs. 25 Lakhs with her company. It is submitted that no balance sheet showing loss as said to be suffered by the company was ever given to her being share-holder of the company. However, he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36772 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026 3/3 conceded fairly that the company was not arrayed as an accused through present FIR.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal submissions and by taking note of the fact as the dispute primarily appears arising out of investment issues, for which appropriate civil remedy is available to the informant, coupled with the fact that petitioner is a lady of clean antecedent, accordingly, abovenamed petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna /concerned court in connection with Patrakarnagar P.S. Case No. 418 of 2025, 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