Patna High CourtCR. MISC./91805/2025dismissed

Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-24Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91805 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2022 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Chandan Kumar S/O Late Ramotar Paswan Resident of Village- Nayagaon Durgasthan, Ward No. 6, P. S- East Colony, Jamalpur, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

The Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Station Road, Jamalpur, P. S- Jamalpur District- Munger ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratnakar Ambastha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP For the Bank :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 143 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 421, 422 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner has committed forgery as well as misappropriated public money for his own benefit.

4. The petitioner, his mother and his sister took a loan of Rs. 33 lakhs from the Central Bank of India after mortgaging the land and they have not repaid the loan amount and have sold

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91805 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026 2/2 the mortgaged property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tired to make out a case that the land was sold to repay the Bank but the cheque issued by the purchaser could not be encashed.

6. Learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the petitioner has cheated the Bank and his intention, right from the very beginning, was not to pay the loan after mortgaging the property and he has even sold the mortgaged property. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has got bail on the submission that he will pay the entire amount within two years.

7. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the huge public amount cheated from the Bank, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T