Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer PaswanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted because the FIR appeared to arise from a pre-existing dispute over maintenance charges and the informant had filed multiple cases, indicating a possibility of abuse of process rather than a genuine criminal case.

Summary

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in Supaul P.S. Case No. 829 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354D, 506, and 34 IPC, alleging that on 26.08.2022 they intercepted the informant, tried to pull her into a car, and dragged her by the neck. The petitioners claimed innocence, pointed to a two-day delay in lodging the FIR without explanation, and stated that the dispute arose from the informant's refusal to pay maintenance charges for her flat in Expression Exotica. The informant and her husband had filed multiple cases against the petitioners and their relatives, including Rupaspur P.S. Case Nos. 498/2022, 572/2022, 428/2023, and Complaint Case Nos. 441/2023 and 1066(C)/2025, which the petitioners argued showed abuse of process. The informant opposed the bail, relying on the Sessions Court's refusal of anticipatory bail and the cognizance taken under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 506, and 34 IPC. The High Court considered the nature of allegations, the prior dispute over maintenance charges, and the multiple cases filed by the informant and her husband. The Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 829 of 2022?
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of motive, coupled with the prior maintenance dispute and multiple cases, indicate false implication and abuse of process?
  • Whether the nature of the allegations and the prior dispute justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • maintenance dispute
  • abuse of process
  • multiple cases
  • delay in FIR
  • false implication
  • pre-arrest bail
  • Section 482 BNSS
  • Indian Penal Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12066 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-829 Year-2022 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer Paswan Son of Late Naresh Paswan Resident of
                  Dariyapur, Sabji Bag, Police Station - Pirbahore, District-Patna.
           2.    Shubankar Raj @ Shubhanker Raj Son of Rajendra Mishra R/o B-306,
                 Expression Exotica, Gola Raod, P.S. - Rupaspur, Dist. - Patna.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :

                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Rajesh Ranjan

                                                   Mr. Himanshu Ranjan

                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Uday Pratap Singh

                 For the informant        :        Mrs. Aditi Medha (in person)

                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   30-04-2026                   1. Heard the parties.

                                 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection

                   with Supaul P.S. Case No. 829 of 2022 (G.R. No. 2047 / 2022)

                   dated 28.08.2022 registered under Section 341, 323, 307, 354D,

                   506, 34 of the I.P.C.

                                 3. As per the F.I.R. on 26.08.2022 at 06:30 P.M. when

                   the informant was returning towards her home, then all the

                   accused persons including the petitioners intercepted her and

                   threatened her, to which she resisted, but the petitioners tried to

                   pull her inside the car. It is further alleged that the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12066 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
                                            2/5




          was somehow rescued by her family members but all the

          accused persons slapped and abused her. When the informant

          again resisted, then the petitioners started dragging her inside

          the vehicle by pressing her neck.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any

          offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that from bare

          perusal of the F.I.R. it is evident that the incident took place on

          26.08.2022 but the F.I.R. was registered on 28.08.2022 after an

          inordinate delay of two days for which no plausible explanation

          has been given by the informant. The informant has not

          disclosed any motive behind the alleged occurrence. The

          petitioner no. 1 is an employee of M/s Expression Buildtech Pvt.

          Ltd. and the petitioner no. 2 is the Director of the aforesaid

          company.

                       5. The informant is one of the residents of Expression

          Exotica, a multistoried residential cum commercial apartment in

          Gola Road. The informant and her husband purchased Flat No.

          A-501 in the said residential complex vide registered sale deed

          dated 12.05.2022 and as per the terms of the sale deed as well as

          regulations made by the Apartment Owners Association every

          flat owner is required to pay maintenance charge for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12066 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
                                            3/5




          amenities availed by him however the informant and her

          husband refused to pay such charges which led to dispute

          between the parties.

                       6. The informant and her husband filed Rupaspur P.S.

          Case No. 498 / 2022 registered under Section 341, 323, 420,

          385, 307, 504, 506, 120(B) of the I.P.C. against the uncle of the

          petitioner no. 2. The husband of the informant filed Rupaspur

          P.S. Case No. 572 / 2022 for offence under Section 385, 504,

          506 / 34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner no. 1 and others. The

          present informant filed Complaint Case No. 441 / 2023 before

          the C.J.M., Supaul against petitioner no. 1, his uncle, brother

          and one of the relatives namely Raj Bharti. The informant

          thereafter filed Complaint Case No. 1066(C) / 2025 before

          ACJM-I, Danapur against Mithlesh Kumar i.e. uncle of the

          petitioner no. 2 and Mrs. Pallav Jha i.e. Secretary of the

          Resident Association stating therein that they have again

          demanded maintenance from her and when she denied she was

          threatened by them. The informant has also instituted Rupaspur

          P.S. Case No. 428 / 2023 under Section 341, 323, 354B, 504,

          506, 509 / 34 of the I.P.C. against some of the residents of the

          apartment who resented the non payment of maintenance

          amount by the informant. Thus, it is very much clear that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12066 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
                                            4/5




          informant and her husband are in the habit of making abuse of

          the process of the court in order to harass and pressurize the

          petitioners and others who refuse to follow their dictates

          inasmuch as they have already filed six cases including the

          present one against the petitioners and their relatives.

                       7. On the other hand, the informant (in person) has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits

          that from perusal of the order refusing anticipatory bail passed

          by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Supaul in A.B.A. No.

          1618 / 2025 it has come that cognizance of offence under

          Section 341, 323, 324, 354, 506 / 34 of the I.P.C. has already

          been taken against the petitioners.

                       8. Regard being had to the submission made by the

          parties, taking into consideration the nature of allegation, the

          fact that there is previous dispute relating to payment of

          maintenance charge for the amenities availed by the flat owner,

          the informant and her husband                have filed multiple cases ,

          accordingly, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

          petitioners.

                       9. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on

          anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the

          court below within a period of four weeks from today on
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12066 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026
                                                           5/5




                         furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each

                         with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

                         learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with

                         Supaul P.S. Case No. 829 of 2022 subject to the condition as

                         laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023.



                                                  (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.