Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48447 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2022 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran ====================================================== Satish Kumar S/o Narayan singh R/o Lokaha, P.S.-Chakiya, District-west Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Balram Singh, S/O- Shatrughan Singh Vill- Urvashi Road, Saraswati Nagar,P.S.- Mufasil, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhagya Narayan Jha For the State :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh For the informant :

Mr. Sujeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-12-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mufassil Police Station Case No. 156 of 2022, dated 17.10.2020, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition, is that the informant runs a hardware shop and the petitioner took some articles worth Rs. 5,40,000/- from the informant on credit and despite repeated request made by the informant, the petitioner did not pay the amount.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48447 of 2024(4) dt.18-12-2025 2/3

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. There was business transactions between the petitioner and the informant, which gives rise to civil dispute, but this has been given the colour of criminal case. He further submits that the petitioner has taken articles worth Rs. 20,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,40,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner to the informant. The petitioner demanded GST bills of the purchase made by him from the informant, but the informant did not provide him the GST bill and in the panchayati, after deducting the GST amount, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 2,51,468/- to the informant and he undertakes to pay the rest amount if the informant provides him the GST bill of the purchase made by him.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the nature of allegation made in the First Information Report and the fact that no serious allegation is made out against the petitioner and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48447 of 2024(4) dt.18-12-2025 3/3 the dispute between the parties relates to business transactions between them, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in connection with Mufassil Police Station Case No. 156 of 2022, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √