← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48976/2026bail granted

Prem Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-22Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48976 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2026 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Prem Kumar Singh Son of Bashisth Narayan Singh Resident of VillageParsagarh Dakshin Tola, Post -Parsagarh, PS- Ekma, District -Saran At Chapra.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 201 of 2026 dated 11.04.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, co-accused Rahul Kalra and his father giving inducement to the informant for making him part of their company, cheated rupees one crore and eleven lakhs from him. The informant was never given any share in the company. The informant named this petitioner and some other co-accused persons for being in conspiracy with the co-accused Rahul Kalra and Anil Kalra.

2/4

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is merely a Director in the company and the company has not been made accused in this case. The allegation is against co-accused Rahul Kalra, who used to interact with prospective investors and the petitioner does not know what assurance was given to the informant and how he parted away with such huge amount. The petitioner is not a promoter in the company and has no say for controlling stake in that company. He was inducted merely as a Professional Director at the request of its promoters. The petitioner had no direct dealings or any financial transactions with the informant.

This fact is also clear from the documents annexed by the informant which shows the total payment of rupees one crore and eleven lakhs was made to the account of Rahul Kalra. The amount was not even paid in the account of the company, i.e. M/s Rondella Laundromat Private Limited / Washing Express. Learned counsel further submits that in fact, the petitioner himself was cheated of rupees forty-one lakh which is still due and payable by Rahul Kalra to the petitioner.

3/4 has no complicity in any of the offences. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.05.2026 and chargesheet has been submitted.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the cheated amount went to the account of the coaccused and not to the account of the company and further considering petitioner's period of custody and submission of chargesheet against him, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna / concerned Court, in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 201 of 2026, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned

4/4 trial Court.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned. (iv) If the fact comes to notice that the petitioner was beneficiary of any amount which was cheated from the informant, the prosecution will be at liberty to move before the learned trial Court for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Shahnawaz/- U T