Patna High Court
Bittu Kumar SinghversusThe state of bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the petitioner has a clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of forgery or misappropriation of public funds, subject to standard bail conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Bittu Kumar Singh, a manager of SFNL Nidhi Limited, was arrested on 13 January 2026 in connection with a 2022 FIR alleging cheating and forgery under IPC sections 420, 467 and 468. He sought bail, contending that he has a clean antecedent, that the FIR was filed hastily based on an unverified finance department letter, and that no complaint has been lodged against his company. The State opposed the bail application. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s clean record, and the absence of specific evidence of forgery or misappropriation of public funds. Finding no compelling reason to deny bail, the Court ordered his release on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order was conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s antecedents and allowed for cancellation if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC sections 420, 467 and 468.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of specific evidence of forgery justify bail.
- Whether the FIR was filed on a false or fabricated basis warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- forgery
- IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- clean antecedent
- Nidhi company
- financial fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16822 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2022 Thana- HAYAGHAT District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Bittu Kumar Singh S/O Ram Naresh Singh R/O Vill.- Ghoshrama, P.S-
Hayaghat,Dist- Darbhanga, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
13.01.2026, in connection with Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 50 of
2022, F.I.R. dated 25.04.2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is of cheating and
forgery in relation to financial transactions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16822 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
In fact, the petitioner is a Manager of SFNL Nidhi Limited and
the allegation against the petitioner’s Company is that the
Company is not registered with the Reserve Bank of India and
SEBI to collect the fund from the public. From perusal of the
F.I.R. itself it appears that the F.I.R. was instituted in haste on
the basis of the letter of Finance Department and without
verifying the same the present F.I.R. was instituted only to
harass the petitioner and apart from aforesaid the prosecution
has not received any complaint against the petitioner’s company
and the petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and there
is no specific allegation of any forgery of misappropriation of
fund of the public, let the petitioner, above named, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-6, Darbhanga in connection
with Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 50 of 2022, subject to the
following conditions :-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16822 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
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.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) 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 antecedents, 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)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…