Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted in the present case, subject to conditions, under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, Chandan Kumar Thakur and Raj Kumar Mishra, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2015 case filed under IPC sections 406, 420 and 120(B) concerning the sale of a bus. The prosecution alleged that the bus was sold on installment, the driver (the petitioner's father‑in‑law) absconded, and the vehicle was later sold outside Bihar. The petitioners contended that the matter was a civil dispute over payment, that a compromise had been reached (supported by a compromise petition), and that they were falsely implicated. The opposite party denied any compromise and opposed the bail. The court, after considering the submissions and the nature of the allegations, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in offences punishable under IPC sections 406, 420 and 120(B).
- Whether the existence of a civil compromise bar the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether delay in filing the FIR affects the entitlement to anticipatory bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- civil compromise
- bus sale dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12506 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2015 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Chandan Kumar Thakur S/o- Mahendra Thakur R/v- Chandpur Ps- Falka
Dist- Katihar.
2. Raj Kumar Mishra S/o- Late Vanshidar Mishra R/v- Shankarpur Ps-
Bhargama Dist- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sri Ashok Pandey S/o- Sri Rameshwar Pandey R/v- Chhtapur Ps- Chhatapur
Dist- Supaul.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ahmad Ali, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Md. Anwar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Chhatapur P.S. Case No.95 of 2015 instituted under
Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant who is
performing business of public transportation purchased a
Marcopolo Bus from petitioner no.1 for the consideration
amount of Rs.12,50,000/- and total Rs.5,50,000/- was handed
over to petitioner no.1 after preparing an agreement. As per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12506 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
term of agreement, the complainant/ informant paid total
Rs.2,71,500/- of the rest installment amount to the financier of
petitioner no.1 as the said bus purchased on monthly installment
by petitioner no1. It is further alleged that petitioner no.2 who is
father-in-law of petitioner no.1 was appointed as driver of the
said vehicle who went to purnea with his vehicle and did not
return, therefore, he informed the local police. During course of
search, the informant came to know that the said vehicle was
sold out to someone outside the Bihar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this
case. He further submits that there is inordinate delay in filing
the complaint which was converted into F.I.R., without any
plausible explanation. Leaned counsel submits that the dispute
is related to the payment with respect sale and purchase of bus
in question, which is purely civil in nature. He further submits
that a compromise was taken place between the parties and in
support of the same, he has filed on record a copy of the
compromise petition. Learned counsel submits that petitioner
no.1 has got clean antecedent and petitioner no.2 has two
criminal antecedents, in which he is on bail and they undertake
to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12506 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 have oppose the prayer for anticipatory
bail. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that no
compromise taken place between the parties, as alleged.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the
nature of allegation leveled against the petitioners, in the event
of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks
from today, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount to each to the satisfaction of the
learned A.C.J.M.-V, Supaul/ concerned Court in connection with
Chhatapur P.S. Case No.95 of 2015, subject to the conditions
laid down in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
U T
Checking your session…