Patna High Court
RANJEET KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not granted.
Summary
The appellant, Ranjeet Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 406, 420, 323, 504/34 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for cheating a complainant by accepting cheques and cash for a tractor purchase, failing to deliver the tractor, issuing a dishonoured cheque, and allegedly abusing the complainant with caste slurs. The Special Judge had rejected his application for anticipatory bail, prompting an appeal to the Patna High Court. The prosecution argued that the appellant authored the bounced cheque and committed offences of cheating and caste-based insult. The appellant contended innocence and alleged false implication. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the appellant was the author of the dishonoured cheque, found no merit to interfere with the lower court’s decision. Consequently, the appeal for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant despite charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and caste-based insult under the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the nature of the offences and the appellant's role in issuing a dishonoured cheque preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 420, 504/34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- dishonoured cheque
- SC/ST Act
- caste abuse
- criminal breach of trust
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2963 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-825 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Son Of Sanjay Yadav Resident Of Village - Nima, Post -
Goga, Police Station - Mufassil, District - Gaya
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Niraj Kumar Son Of Gulachand Choudhary Resident Of Village - Bhore,
Police Station - Mufassil, District - Gaya
3. Mahindra Finance Company Through Its Regional Manager Nagmatia Road,
Ps- Civil Lines, Dist- Gaya
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1, Spl. Public Prosecutor
For the R. No. 2 : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 02-04-2026 Earlier, the case was referred to mediation center vide
order dated 07.11.2025 but as per the Mediator’s Report dated
03.12.2025, mediation between the parties has failed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent
no. 2 and the State.
3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the
order dated 23.04.2024 passed by learned Exclusive Special
Judge SC/ST, Gaya in ABP No. 104 of 2024 arising out of
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 825 of 2023, registered under Sections
406, 420, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)
(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of
appellant has been rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2963 of 2024(8) dt.02-04-2026
2/2
4. As per prosecution case, complainant gave cheques
of Rs. 3.5 lacs and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 3 lacs in cash to the
appellant, in lieu of purchasing a tractor but appellant failed to
deliver the same to the complainant and gave him a cheque of
Rs. 4 lacs, which got dishonoured due to account closure. When
complainant and his father went to the house of appellant, to
demand their money back, this appellant abused them by caste
name and threatened them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is innocent and has committed no offence. Appellant
has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive.
6. Learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2
vehemently opposed the bail application. Appellant is author of
cheques which got bounced.
7. Considering nature of accusation and the fact that
appellant is author of the cheque which got dishonoured, I do
not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned
court below and as such, the appeal, which has been filed for
grant of anticipatory bail, is hereby rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…