Patna High Court

Md. Washim @ Shekh Washim @ Shekh VasimversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANIL KUMAR SINHA

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Md. Washim, was accused of cheating the complainant, Md. Nayeem, by taking Rs.75,000 and an additional Rs.25,000 under the pretext of arranging a job and a work visa in Dubai, which ultimately did not materialize. The complainant alleged that after 28 days in Dubai, no work visa was secured and the petitioner failed to return the money, prompting a complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and attributing the allegations to a personal enmity. The court examined the nature of the allegation, the direct claim of a Rs.1,00,000 fraud, and the petitioner’s prior similar criminal antecedents. Concluding that the seriousness of the cheating charge warranted custody, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case of alleged cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 420

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 420
cheating
fraud
criminal antecedents
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18597 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1595 Year-2018 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
                                                  District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Md. Washim @ Shekh Washim @ Shekh Vasim S/o Late Shekh Nishar
                 Ahmad R/o vill - Loharitola Marpatahir, P.s.- Bairagnia, Distt.- Sitamarhi, At
                 present Mohalla Data Kambal Sah Mazar, P.S.- Nagar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Mohammad Naim @ Md. Nayeem S/o Md. Tashlim R/o Mohalla -
                 Chakbashu, Kachchi Sarai, P.S.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Manoj Kumar
                                               Ms.Nitu Kumari
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026         1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

                            Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                       2.   This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out

                            of Complaint Case No. 1595 of 2018, in which

                            cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable

                            under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

                       3.   The prosecution case, as per the complaint filed by Md.

                            Nayeem, is that on the assurance to arrange a job for the

                            complainant in Dubai, U.A.E., the petitioner has taken a

                            sum of Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioner has also taken a sum

                            of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of flight ticket and police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18597 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                            2/3




                   clearance certificate. The petitioner sent the complainant

                   to Dubai on a tourist visa saying that when he would

                   reach Dubai, his person will arrange for work visa. It is

                   alleged that after 28 days of reaching Dubai, the petitioner

                   and/or his man could not arrange the work visa for the

                   complainant and later on, when the father of the

                   complainant sent him the flight ticket, he returned to

                   India.

              4.   Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

                   this case due to previous enmity with the complainant. He

                   further submits that the petitioner was sent to Dubai, the

                   flight ticket of which was provided by the petitioner to the

                   complainant. Since the work visa could not be provided

                   by the U.A.E. authorities, as such, the job could not be

                   provided to the complainant.

              5.   Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf

                   of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of

                   allegation and the fact that there is direct allegation that

                   on the false assurance, the petitioner has taken a huge

                   amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the petitioner is having

                   criminal antecedents of similar nature of offence, I am not
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18597 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                               inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory

                               bail.

                          6.   This application is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                           (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-

U √     T   √

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…