Patna High Court
SANJAY SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Singh, sought anticipatory bail after being charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code for alleged assault and theft related to a loan dispute with the informant, who is his sister-in-law. The informant claimed the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 4,50,000 and later assaulted her and her daughter when she demanded repayment, leading to a criminal FIR. The petitioner argued that the dispute is essentially civil and that the criminal case was filed to coerce repayment, and he highlighted that the alleged injuries were not to a vital part of the body. The court examined the nature of the allegations, the injury report, and the fact that the informant could have pursued civil remedies, concluding that the criminal complaint did not warrant denial of bail. Relying on Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions of bail bonds and sureties. The order also noted that the matter would proceed on its merits after the bail is secured.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged assault and loan recovery.
- Whether the dispute is civil in nature and thus unsuitable for criminal prosecution.
- Whether the alleged injuries constitute a serious offence warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 325, 341, 354, 379, 406, 420, 427, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- Indian Penal Code
- civil dispute
- loan recovery
- assault
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19633 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-383 Year-2020 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Sanjay Singh Son Of Late Gopal Singh Resident Of Village- Kurra, Lp.S.-
Mohania, District- Kaimur (BHABUA).
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
12 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
325, 354(B), 427, 308, 379, 420, 406, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, at the outset, submits that petitioner had moved this
Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing the instant criminal
miscellaneous. It is submitted that the case was taken up on
10.05.2022, when petitioner before this Court on his own
volition and without any coercion had agreed to pay an amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
2/8
of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the informant, based on which, the learned
Co-ordinate Bench granted the privilege of provisional
anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a period of six months with
a condition that at the time of furnishing bail bonds, the
petitioner will deposit a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/-. It is
submitted that petitioner in compliance of the order dated
10.05.2022, submitted a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- and
thereafter he was granted the privilege of provisional
anticipatory bail for a period of six months, but then petitioner
became wise and filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43723 of
2022, seeking modification of the order dated 10.05.2022 in
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19633 of 2021, for extending the
time of repaying the rest of the amount. It is submitted that the
learned Co-ordinate Bench by an order dated 24.08.2022
allowed the modification application and the order dated
10.05.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19633 of 2021 was
modified to the extent that the entire amount shall be paid to the
other side within a period of one year from the date of passing
of the order in the modification application.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that based on instruction of the
petitioner, the said submission was made before the learned Co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
3/8
ordinate Bench on 10.05.2022 that petitioner is ready to return
an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, based on which, the order dated
10.05.2022 came to be passed. It is next submitted that after the
petitioner obtained provisional bail thereafter he sought legal
advice and then he came to know that even after paying Rs.
4,50,000/-, the case against him will continue, on which the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits
that had the amount been repaid to the informant in terms of the
undertaking given by the petitioner before this Court on
10.05.2022, in that event, the case would have been
withdrawn/compromised, but then petitioner became wise and
very conveniently hoodwinked the orders of this Court after
seeking provisional anticipatory bail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant next submits that petitioner after obtaining
provisional anticipatory bail, moved before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by filing SLA (Criminal) No. 12706/12707 of
2022 against the order dated 10.05.2022 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 19633 of 2021 and the order dated
24.08.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43723 of 2022 i.e.
the order by which the time for paying the amount was
extended.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
4/8
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that SLA (Criminal) No.
12706/12707 of 2022 dated 15.02.2023 restored the Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 19633 of 2021 and remanded the matter back
for re-consideration of the case on merits.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner next submits that in terms of the order of remand by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case now has to be adjudicated
on merits. It is next submitted that in sum and substance the
allegation is that the informant who is Bhabhi of the petitioner
alleges that petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.4,50, 000/- from
her assuring that at the time of marriage of her daughter he will
bear the expenses but then when the daughter of the informant
attained the marriageable age, the petitioner refused, further on
03.12.2020, the informant had gone to the house of the
petitioner for seeking her money back when she was assaulted
by lathi and danda causing injury on hand and even a finger of
her hand got fractured, requiring 20 stitches and also snatched
her mobile, further the accused snatched chain and ear-ring of
her daughter and even dashed the mobile of her daughter, on
account of which, it broke, the injured were taken to the
hospital.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
5/8
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that in sum and substance the dispute is civil in nature.
It is further submitted that if informant was aggrieved by the
fact that petitioner is not returning the amount which he had
taken from her, in that event, the informant could have moved
before a court of competent civil jurisdiction by filing an
appropriate application seeking recovery of the loan amount,
where petitioner would have got an opportunity to either accept
or rebut her claim but then a criminal case came to be instituted
with an intent to coerce the petitioner into submission so that he
parts with fanciful demand of the informant under fear of arrest.
It is also submitted that no doubt the allegation of assault is also
alleged against the petitioner but then it is submitted that
Mohaniya P.S. Case No.295 of 2019 came to be instituted by the
father of the informant against unknown alleging killing of his
son i.e. husband of the present informant, in which the present
petitioner is also a witness. It is submitted that though
Mohaniya P.S. Case No.295 of 2019 was instituted against
unknown but during the course of investigation the involvement
of the informant and her son transpired as the main accused. It is
further submitted that the instant case has been instituted by way
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
6/8
of a counter blast to Mohaniya P.S. Case No.295 of 2019 so that
petitioner is coerced into submission and does not give evidence
in the trial arising out of Mohaniya P.S. Case No.295 of 2019. It
is further submitted that even presuming what has been alleged
in the FIR to be true with regard to assault then the assault is not
on vital part of the body but then the same is an aspect of
investigation and trial whether informant and her daughter were
assaulted by the petitioner or not. It is reiterated and submitted
that the FIR has been instituted for recovering the loan amount
which the informant alleges had given to the petitioner.
9. Learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail application
of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that
there is specific allegation of assaulting the informant and her
daughter and the injury suffered by the injured has been opined
to be grievous in nature but then fairly submits that the injury is
on hand and also relied on a supplementary injury report dated
23.12.2020. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that from perusal of the
supplementary injury report, it would manifest that the same
records- the digital x-ray of the left elbow and the left hand done
on 23.12.2020 at Aditya Diagnostic Center, Mohaniya, Ward
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
7/8
No.15 confirmed the above finding. It was done to obtain
greater bonee resolution. It is thus submitted that the digital x-
ray was done on 23.12.2020, when the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place on 03.12.2020 but then fairly submits that even
presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then
the injury is not on vital part of the body. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant is not in a position to rebut
the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner that injury is not on vital part of the body and that
informant is an accused in Mohaniya P.S. Case No.295 of 2019,
in which, petitioner is a witness and also the submission that if
the petitioner was not returning the amount which he had taken
by way of loan from the informant, in that event, the informant
ought to have approached a court of competent civil jurisdiction
for recovering her money back instead of instituting a criminal
case.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the court is in agreement with the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, hence the petitioner above-named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19633 of 2021(12) dt.01-05-2026
8/8
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Mohaniya P.S. Case No.383 of 2020, 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…