Patna High Court
SachinversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding the allegations insufficient to justify arrest.
Summary
The petitioners, Sachin and Anju, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) relating to alleged misappropriation of Rs 60‑70 lakhs by a manager named Manindra. The informant, who is Manindra's brother‑in‑law and wife, alleged that the petitioners received the misappropriated funds but admitted he had no documentary proof. The petitioners contended that they have clean antecedents, the allegations are based solely on suspicion, and the case was filed to coerce Manindra’s family. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the lack of concrete evidence and the possibility of arrest, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite allegations under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B).
- Whether the informant's allegations, lacking documentary proof, constitute sufficient ground for arrest.
- Whether the case was instituted to coerce the petitioners and therefore merits bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482
- false implication
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- forgery
- conspiracy
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15573 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-493 Year-2024 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Sachin S/o Sukhpal Singh R/o Village - Noorpur Muglan, Dhadola (46),
Sector 29, P.S - Bapoli, District - Panipat, State - Haryana
2. Anju W/o Manindra R/o Village - Noorpur Muglan, Dhadola (46), Sector
29, P.S - Bapoli, District - Panipat, State - Haryana
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Pratibha Srivastava, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.
2 is a woman and the informant alleges that he started a
hatchery at Panipat in the year 2012 and during course of
business came in contact with Akhilesh who was also in the
same business at Jehanabad, further Akhilesh told him that his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15573 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/4
business is not performing well, thus, requested him to become
a partner, thus informant became partner with Akhilesha nd
invested money in the business being looked after by Akhilesh,
further in the year 2019 Akhilesh left the business and handed
over the hatchery farm to the informant on lease for 15 years in
lieu of rent of Rs. 2,15000/- per month, next alleges that he was
looking for someone who could run his business at Jehanabad,
when his brother-in-law, Sukhpal, maternal nephew Manindra,
Sachin, Anju and Surendra approached him and requested to
keep Manindra as manager who was unemployed, thus, he
appointed Manindra as Manager, next alleges that Manindra
started misappropriating money and deposited an amount of Rs.
60 Lakhs in the account of his father Sachin and Anju, but he
does not have proof with regard to the same presently and also
came to know that Surendra and Satvir, cousin of Manindra
used to come to Jehanabad and in connivance had sent Rs. 60-
70 Lakhs in cash, further when informant informed that he is
coming to Jehanabad for checking the account in 2021,
Manindra burnt all the documents with the help of Mahesh and
threw in Dardha river.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15573 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/4
the informant being brother and wife of Manindra. It is further
submitted that thrust of the allegation is against Manindra, but
then it is also submitted that if the allegations are perused
carefully, it would manifest that informant alleges that an
amount of Rs. 60-70 Lakhs was credited in the account of
father, wife and brother of Manindra, but then the informant
himself states that presently he does not have any proof with
regard to the same, as such, the entire allegation hinges around
suspicion. It is next submitted that this amply demonstrates that
the case has been instituted in haste only to coerce Manindar
and his family into submission so that they part with fanciful
demand of the informant. It is next submitted that if what has
been alleged is true without admitting in that event the
informant ought to have approached the Court of competent
civil jurisdiction for getting the issue of account adjudicated.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15573 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
4/4
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 493 of 2024 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application is allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…