Patna High Court
SUMA DEVIversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's order granting bail without imposing any onerous recovery condition.
Summary
The appeal challenged the cancellation of bail granted to Bijay Mandal in a land‑sale dispute where the complainant alleged cheating, assault and offences under the SC/ST Act. The trial court had granted regular bail on the condition of a modest cash surety, noting that the matter was essentially civil and that the alleged offences fell under Section 420 IPC, which is triable by a magistrate. The appellant argued that the bail order imposed an onerous condition of payment of the disputed amount, which is impermissible. The High Court observed that imposing recovery‑related conditions while granting bail contravenes Supreme Court precedent, particularly Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025). Consequently, the court found no ground to interfere with the lower court’s order and dismissed the appeal, leaving the bail in force.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be conditioned on the payment of a disputed civil amount
- Whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act merit criminal prosecution or are merely civil in nature
- Whether the trial court erred in cancelling the bail on the basis of non‑payment of the amount
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- onerous condition
- land dispute
- civil vs criminal
- SC/ST Act
- Section 420 IPC
- appeal dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1039 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Jamui
======================================================
Suma Devi Wife Of Shankar Ravidas R/O Village- Pathak Chak Maricha,
P.S.- Sikandra, District- Jamui
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bijay Mandal Son Of Bisheshwar Mandal R/O Village- Shivdih, P.S.-
Sikandra, District- Jamui
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 19-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal preferred for cancellation of
bail as granted to respondent no. 2 namely Bijay Mandal,
through impugned order dated 11.02.2022, as passed in
SC/ST P.S Case No. 219 of 2021, arising out of Jamui SC/ST
P.S Case No. 05 of 2021 from the court of ADJ-I -cum- Spl.
Judge, SC/ST Act, Jamui.
3. For better understanding of the factual aspect, it
would be apposite to reproduce the impugned order dated
11.02.2022, which is as under:-
“Heard Ld. Counsels for the petitioner namely Vijay
Mandal, Informant as well as state.
As per the FIR, prosecution story, in brief, is that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1039 of 2022(4) dt.19-02-2026
2/4
accused Vijay Mandal and Brijesh Mandal sold a land
to the informant and her husband for Rs.
13,75,000/-. Later on it came to light that the said
land was already sold to someone else and the earlier
purchaser was in possession. When the informant
and her husband asked for their money then they
were abused and assaulted in full public view.
It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that earlier the petitioner was allowed
provisional bail as there were negotiations for
settlement. The petitioner was ready to pay the
amount mentioned in the document but the
informant insisted on getting only rupees
13,75,000/-, which is the amount he alleges to have
been paid. Therefore the settlement could not take
place and the bail bonds of the petitioner were
canceled. Later on the petitioner was arrested and he
is in custody since 03.02.22. At the time of
cancellation of the provisional bail granted to the
petitioner, the court had directed that the case will
be heard on merits. The petitioner could not know
about the cancellation and was finally arrested after
the non- bailable warrants were issued by this court.
As far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is
submitted that the case is of civil nature and only a
criminal color is being given to it. It is admitted by
the informant that the Jamabandi is running in his
name even till today. No civil suit is filed for either
declaration of title or getting back the money. This
criminal case has been filed only to pressurize the
petitioner in paying the money. The allegation under
the SC/ST Act are ornamental in nature. There is no
injury to anyone. There is no specific allegation of
abusing, etc. The allegation of abusing and assault
has not been supported by the independent
witnesses. The petitioner has only one more case
against him, in which he is on bail.
The Ld. P.P, assisted by the ld. Counsel for the
informant, opposes the prayer for bail and submits
that the petitioner and his brother are the main
negotiators. They fully knew that the land has
already been sold and then also they cheated the
informant. When the informant demanded his money
then he was abused and assaulted in a public place.
The petitioner earlier became ready to pay the
amount but after grant of provisional bail, refused to
honour his words. The ld. Counsel further submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1039 of 2022(4) dt.19-02-2026
3/4
that in case the petitioner pays the entire Rs.
13,75,000/- then the grievance of the informant will
be redressed. Therefore a prayer has been made for
refusal of the bail.
In view of the totality of the circumstances, the the
allegations if accepted, makes out a case only under
section 420 of IPC, which is triable by magistrate
and punishable upto 3 years. The petitioner is in
custody since 03.02.22. The Jamabandi is still
running in the name of the informant. Investigation
of the case is over. Considering the aforesaid, the
petitioner namely Vijay Mandal, is directed to be
released on bail by furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.
However, it is made clear, that the findings in
this order is only for the purpose of bail, the same
will not hamper the rights of the parties in any other
forum. “
4. Considering the submission, it transpires that the
present appeal was preferred for cancellation of aforesaid
order for the simple reason that respondent no. 2 failed to pay
the amount as agreed while granting provisional bail. It is
submitted that the court while dealing bail petition cannot act
like a recovery court or to put any onerous conditions
amounting to recovery of the disputed amount and moreover,
the respondent no. 2 was granted regular bail by the court
considering the maximum sentence.
5. Appellant appears aggrieved for the reason as no
onerous condition was imposed through impugned order qua
recovery.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1039 of 2022(4) dt.19-02-2026
4/4
6. Approach of learned trial court is correct as time
and again, Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly said that
onerous condition cannot be imposed while granting bail,
recently as available through Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs.
State of Maharastra and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1571.
7. In view of aforesaid, this Court find no occasion
to interfere with impugned order, accordingly, the present
appeal stands dismissed.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…