Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Sinha, a senior citizen with a clean record, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The FIR primarily targets his nephew, Mukesh Kumar Sinha, for allegedly cheating an informant by promising high returns on investments, with the petitioner alleged only to have been present when Rs.5 lakh was handed over to Mukesh. The State opposed the bail but could not point to any specific allegation against the petitioner. The court examined the lack of direct accusation against the petitioner and considered his age, clean antecedent, and the nature of the alleged offences. Applying Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, with conditions as prescribed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC.
- Whether the petitioner is a necessary party to the FIR and faces specific charges.
- Whether the petitioner’s age and clean antecedent warrant bail despite the alleged involvement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- IPC offences
- false implication
- senior citizen
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14847 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2024 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Sinha S/o- Late Bijendra Prasad Village- Chowa Lal Lane,
Nawab Bahadur Road, P.S.- Khajekala, Patna City, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420,
506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that one Mukesh Kumar Sinha was known to him and he
introduced himself as board member of Rajni Enterprises and
Rajni Coal Limited and thus convinced the informant that he
will give 7.25 % per month by way of interest on his principal
amount, the informant being convinced by Mukesh Kumar
Sinha, invested an amount of Rs.29 lacs in both the companies.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14847 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that thrust of
the allegation is against Mukesh Kumar Sinha. It is further
submitted that petitioner is uncle of Mukesh came to be
implicated. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that he paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs to Mukesh
in presence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the
offences for which the instant FIR has been instituted carries
punishment of 7 years and less. It is also submitted that
petitioner is senior citizen aged about 70 years and has remained
a person with clean antecedent all through out.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then are not in a position to
rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner that no specific allegation is alleged against the
petitioner rather the allegation against the petitioner is that in his
presence an amount of Rs.5 lacs was given to Mukesh.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14847 of 2025(3) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case
is pending/successor court in connection with Khajekala P.S.
Case No.276/2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…