Uday Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65475 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-565 Year-2023 Thana- ISLAMPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Uday Kumar Verma S/o Late Raghunandan Prasad Resident of villageGoverdhan Bigha, P.S.- Katrisarai, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar No. I, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Pramod Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Amit Kr, Advocate Ms. Anjali Anand, Advocate Mrs. Bhanu Priya, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2025
1. Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Islampur P.S. Case no.565 of 2023 registered under sections 406, 420, 504 and 34 of the IPC and Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3.The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the petitioner took a sum of 18,55,000/- from the informant on different ₹ dates for running a fertilizer business. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.18,55,000/- in favour of the informant, which was subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65475 of 2025(3) dt.19-12-2025 2/3
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that entire story of taking loan to the tune of Rs.18,55,000/- is not true and as a matter of fact the cheque in question was issued merely as security in the course of ongoing business transactions relating to fertilizers. It has also been submitted that assertion in the F.I.R is that fertilizer worth Rs.7 lakhs was given to the petitioner in 550 bags also does not seem to be a plausible proposition as both the informant and petitioner are running retail fertilizer shops. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the present case involves essentially civil dispute arising out of business transaction and the petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2025 and charges have already been framed.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant on the basis of allegations made in the F.I.R as also on the point that the informant has been duped of his huge amount of money.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that the dispute arises out of business transaction, petitioner is languishing in custody since 21.07.2025 and charge having been framed and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65475 of 2025(3) dt.19-12-2025 3/3 Islampur P.S. Case no.565 of 2023 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the family member/close relative of the petitioner. (II) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial and in case he is absent on two consecutive dates without substantial reason, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T