Patna High Court
Namit Sinha @ Sunny @ Namit Kumar SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Namit Sinha, was implicated in a case (Patliputra P.S. Case No. 338 of 2025) for alleged extortion, threats, and intimidation under Sections 352, 351(2) and 308(4) of the B.N.S. He claimed the FIR was lodged ten days after the alleged incidents and argued that the dispute stemmed from a prior contractual and monetary disagreement, with counter‑claims and related suits filed by both parties. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending that the allegations were false and motivated by the ongoing money dispute. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application. Considering the delay in filing the FIR, the background of a financial dispute, and the nature of the allegations, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and sureties, and required cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offences and the delay in lodging the FIR.
- Whether the background of a monetary dispute and alleged false allegations affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 308(4), 351(2), 352
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- delay in FIR
- money dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23196 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2025 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna
======================================================
Namit Sinha @ Sunny @ Namit Kumar Sinha Son of Madan Prasad @
Madan Prasad Sinha Resident of NTPC Colony, P.S. - Ramkrishna Nagar,
Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Allama Abdul Quadir Jamal Faridi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Patliputra P.S. Case No. 338 of 2025 in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 352,
351(2), 308(4) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the petitioner is said to
have demanded Rs. 45 lakhs as extortion money from
informant’s son and brother by threatening them. It is further
alleged that on objection, the petitioner abused them and also
threatened them to falsely implicate them in molestation case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
submits that there is delay of ten days in lodging of the FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23196 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
inasmuch as he stated that it is from 02.08.2025 that the present
petitioner was calling the informant and demanding money. It is
further submitted that both the parties were in contractual
agreement earlier, and on account of some violation in the terms
and conditions, the relationship between them became strained
and cases were filed by both the sides against each other. A
money suit was also filed by the informant against the petitioner
and upon a case bearing Danapur P.S. Case No. 465 of 2025
filed by the petitioner’s wife against the present informant, in
retaliation, another case bearing Danapur P.S. Case No. 466 of
2025 was filed against the wife of the present petitioner. It is
thus, submitted that there are allegations and counter allegations
and the dispute with regard to some money transaction in the
business, the petitioner has been falsely attributed the allegation
of extortion.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the delay in the FIR coupled
with the background of a money dispute between the parties, let
the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23196 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
weeks from today, be enlarged 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 the learned court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Patliputra P.S. Case No. 338 of 2025, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the
B.N.S.S., subject to the conditions that:
(I) One of the bailors will be a family member/close
relative.
(II) The petitioner shall cooperate in the
investigation/trial and in case of non-cooperation, the
prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for
cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…