Patna High Court
Anwar @ Alam AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to monetary bond and procedural conditions, despite the pending charges.
Summary
Anwar @ Alam Ansari was arrested in connection with a complaint that he received Rs. 20 lakh from an informant promising to double the money by magic and then disappeared. The FIR was lodged a month after the alleged incident, and no material was recovered from the petitioner’s possession, with the recovery occurring at the house of a third party, Gopal Kumar. The petitioner applied for bail, arguing that the delayed FIR indicated a false implication and that the evidence against him was weak. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s multiple criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offences under Sections 318(2), (3) and (4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act. The court, noting the lack of direct recovery from the petitioner and the delay in filing the FIR, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite charges under Sections 318(2), 318(3) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of recovered material from the petitioner justify granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 318(2), 318(3), 318(4)
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- criminal antecedent
- Section 318
- magic money scam
- evidence recovery
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12891 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Anwar @ Alam Ansari S/o- Lukman Ansari @ Lokman Ansari R/v-
Maraghiya Ps- Barari District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Kumar Abhishek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
: Mr. Amitabh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
21.11.2025 in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 230 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Section 318(2), 318(3),
318(4) of the BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one
Ankesh Kumar in his written report addressed to SHO, Parbatta
alleged that his friend namely Gopal Kumar brought a person at
his residence who disclosed his name Anwar, claimed that he
can double the money by magic. It is further alleged by
informant that on 23.05.2025 Anwar came at his residence and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12891 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
he gave Rs. 20,00,000-/ to Anwar. It is further alleged that
Anwar told informant to come with a candle and when
informant went to get a candle Anwar changed the bundle of
cash and further left one bundle of cash in room and asked
informant that he would come back after a while but he did not
returned despite repeated call.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from
bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the present case is a very
unique case although the petitioner is named in the FIR. It is
next submitted that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that
the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 23.05.2025 but
the present FIR has been instituted on 20.06.2025 i.e., after a
delay of about one month which suggests that it is an after
thought FIR instituted so as to implicate the petitioner falsely. It
is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the
house of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from
the house of one Gopal Kumar who is happened to be the friend
of the informant who has introduced the petitioner with the
informant. It is next submitted that police after investigation has
submitted charge-sheet and charge has been framed against the
petitioner on 11.03.2026 which suggests that the investigation
stands concluded and the petitioner is in custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12891 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
21.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
although the petitioner has mentioned his one criminal
antecedent but, in fact, the petitioner has antecedent of more
than one case other than the case mentioned in paragraph-3 of
the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and that nothing has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made
from the house of one Gopal Kumar who is happened to be the
friend of the informant and police after investigation has
submitted charge-sheet and charge has been framed against the
petitioner on 11.03.2026, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-
I, Khagaria in connection with in connection with Parbatta P.S.
Case No. 230 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12891 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…