Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Balram KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Balram Kumar, was implicated in a case (Nadi P.S. Case No. 172 of 2025) alleging forgery and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and a clean antecedent, and expressed willingness to comply with any conditions. The State opposed the bail, highlighting specific allegations of fraud that caused financial loss to the informant. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender within six weeks and to consider mediation for restitution. The trial court was instructed to decide the surrender‑cum‑bail application promptly without prejudice from the anticipatory bail denial.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the allegations of fraud and cheating.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • fraud
  • IPC 406
  • IPC 420
  • criminal procedure
  • bail application

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22618 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- NADI P.S. District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Balram Kumar, Son of Surendra Ray, resident of Jethuli, P.S- Fatuha, District
                 Patna.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                     ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Ms. Sripriya Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Nadi P.S. Case No. 172 of 2025, dated 28.06.2025, lodged

                   under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending

                   before the Court of J.M. 1st Class, Patna City.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   the petitioner alleging that the petitioner prepared and used forged

                   documents and, by deceit, obtained money and a vehicle from the

                   informant in the name of land.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

                   further submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean.

                   Counsel further submits that all the allegations levelled against the

                   petitioner are false and fabricated. Counsel also submits that the

                   petitioner is ready to comply with all conditions whatsoever that

                   may be imposed upon him.
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22618 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                      2/2




                                 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail

                    of the petitioner and submits that it has been acknowledged in the

                    rejection order that, from the materials available in the case diary,

                    there are direct and specific allegations of fraud against the

                    present petitioner, which have resulted in financial loss to the

                    informant and his wife.

                                 6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                    not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                    Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is

                    hereby rejected.

                                 7. It is hereby directed that the petitioner shall surrender

                    before the Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. In

                    case the petitioner surrenders within six weeks and shows

                    willingness to pay the amount in question through the process of

                    mediation to be conducted by the Trial Court, the Trial Court is

                    directed to pass an order on his surrender-cum-bail application on

                    the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the

                    anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court,

                    and the Trial Court shall pass orders on the merits of the case.



                                                              (Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.