Patna High Court
Narayan Kumar Mallick @ Narayan MallickversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Narayan Kumar Mallick, was arrested in connection with a case alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 476 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code relating to a disputed sale deed and alleged misappropriation of Rs.5 lakh. The informant claims the petitioner must return the amount, while the petitioner contends the matter is purely civil and that he has been falsely implicated, citing eight prior similar cases. The petitioner applied for bail, arguing that the FIR does not disclose any specific criminal act and that the dispute should be resolved in a civil forum. The State opposed bail, but the court considered the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, and precedent of provisional bail in similar cases. The court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, warning that the trial court may cancel bail if the petitioner attempts to delay proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent cases and the nature of the dispute justify granting bail.
- Whether a civil dispute can be given a criminal colour to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 420, 467, 468, 476
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- forgery
- conspiracy
- civil dispute
- false implication
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17808 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2022 Thana- KATIHAR MUFFASIL District- Katihar
======================================================
Narayan Kumar Mallick @ Narayan Mallick Son of Raghuveer Mallick
Resident of Lohiya Nagar, P.S.- Sahayak, District - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumar Ashutosh S/O Late Mahendra Prasad Singh, R/V - Shivnagar, P.S.
Maranga, Dist. - Purnia
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Abhigyan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Suresh Prasad Sah @ Baranwal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
6 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406,420, 467, 468, 476 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17808 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026
2/5
petitioner has antecedent of eight cases of similar nature and is
in custody since 28.10.2024. It is next submitted that the
informant alleges that Amarnath Prasad along with Sanjay got a
sale deed executed in between the informant and petitioner
based on an agreement shown to the informant entered in
between petitioner and land owner Deepak with respect to a
land on 13.12.2017 for a total consideration of Rs. 9,18,500/-
out of which an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to the
petitioner by cheque and Rs. 3,63,000/- was paid in account of
the father of Deepak and the sale deed was to be executed till
30.11.2020, it is next alleged that Deepak executed the sale deed
after taking extra amount, thus informant alleges that petitioner
who had taken Rs. 5,00,000/- ought to have returned that
amount as Deepak while executing the sale deed had taken an
extra amount.
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 in sum
and substance, the allegation is that Deepak while executing the
sale deed took an extra amount from the informant, as such, the
petitioner ought to have returned the amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17808 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026
3/5
which he had taken. It is further submitted that from perusal of
the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
same does not even remotely suggest that as to what extra
amount was taken by Deepak for executing the sale deed. It is
also submitted that the dispute is purely civil to which a
criminal colour has been given.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that if petitioner returns the
amount, in that event the informant will withdraw the case
against him, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that informant by instituting the instant
FIR is trying to coerce the petitioner into submission so that
petitioner parts with fanciful demand of the informant. It is also
submitted that if the informant is of the view that an amount of
Rs. 5 Lakhs is due to him, in that event the informant ought to
have moved before a Court of competent civil jurisdiction for
getting the dispute adjudicated where the petitioner would have
got a chance to rebut his claim, but then a criminal case has
been instituted only to coerce the petitioner into submission.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that petitioner has antecedent of
eight case and in some other cases, the petitioner had moved
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17808 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026
4/5
before this Court seeking regular bail, but then the learned Co-
ordinate Bench while granting provisional bail to the petitioner
had also recorded that petitioner will pay the entire due amount,
as such, it is submitted that in this case also, if bail is to be
granted, the same yardsticks be followed, on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
allegation is to be appreciated. It is reiterated and submitted by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
informant does not disclose that as to what extra amount was
taken by Deepak to execute the sale deed. It is further submitted
that the amount which was agreed for selling the land, on the
said amount only the sale deed has been executed by Deepak. It
is also submitted that since charges have been framed, the
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to
prove his innocence.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17808 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026
5/5
each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case
is pending/successor court in connection with Katihar Muffasil
P.S. Case No. 233 of 2022.
9. It is made clear that if the learned Trial Court
comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release, is trying
to delay the trial in any manner, in that event the learned Trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is
allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…