Patna High Court
Md. Abrar Ahmad @ Abrar AhmadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of an immediate apprehension of arrest and given the pending notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, anticipatory bail could not be granted at this stage.
Summary
The petitioners, who run Abrar Enterprises, were implicated in a FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC for allegedly failing to pay the informant for a paddy consignment worth Rs. 13.59 crore. The petitioners contend that the dispute is purely civil, that they have already paid Rs. 11 crore, and that the FIR was filed to pressure them into paying the remaining amount. The informant and the State argue that the petitioners misappropriated the grain and forged documents, justifying an anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, had been served and that the petitioners were cooperating with the investigation. Finding no immediate apprehension of arrest, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage but allowed the petitioners to approach the Court later if a reasonable apprehension of arrest arises.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in the present circumstances
- Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting immediate arrest
- Whether the notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) negates the need for anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute vs criminal case
- Section 35(3) B.N.S.S.
- IPC offences
- notice under B.N.S.S.
- business transaction dispute
- non-appearance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23940 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2024 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Md. Abrar Ahmad @ Abrar Ahmad S/o Late Irfan Ahmad R/o Vill- Farastar
Belthara Raod, P.S.- Ubhaon, Dist- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh)
2. Most. Shahjadi Ahmad @ Shahjadi W/o Late Irfan Ahmad R/o Vill- Farastar
Belthara Raod, P.S.- Ubhaon, Dist- Ballia (Uttar Pradesh)
3. Tipu Sultan Haidar Ali R/o Vill- Aundi, P.S.- Ubhaon, Dist- Ballia (Uttar
Pradesh)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandan Kumar S/o Anil Prasad Gupta R/o Vill- Chapri, P.S.- Obra, Dist-
Aurangabad-824124
2. Chandan Kumar Anil Prasad Gupta Resident of Village Chapri PS Obra
District Aurangabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
10 11-02-2026 Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners appeared through virtual mode.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
3. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Obra Police Station Case No. 334 of 2024,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23940 of 2025(10) dt.11-02-2026
2/5
disclosing offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that the informant is a proprietor of Balaji Trader, a
firm dealing in the sale and purchase of grains. On January 15,
2024, the informant entered into a business deal with Abrar
Enterprises, in which petitioner no. 1 is the proprietor, petitioner
no. 2 is the partner and mother of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner
no. 3 is the employee of the firm. As per the understanding, the
paddy worth Rs. 13.59 crore was supplied to the firm between
January 16, 2024 and June 25, 2024. A sum of Rs. 11 crore was
paid by the petitioners in installments, but a sum of Rs. 2.59
crore remained unpaid. When the informant attempted to contact
petitioner no. 1, his mobile was found switched off.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case with oblique
motive in order to put pressure upon them to pay the sum of Rs.
2.59 crore. The allegation made in the FIR gives rise to a civil
dispute and no element of criminality is involved therein. It has
further been submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that
from the very inception, the intention of the petitioners was to
deceive or cheat the informant. The very fact that out of the total
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23940 of 2025(10) dt.11-02-2026
3/5
amount claimed by the informant, the petitioner's firm has paid
11 crore goes to show that the intention of the petitioners was
not to cheat and deceive the informant. A civil dispute has been
given a colour of criminal case in abuse of the process of the
court. Referring to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by
the opposite party no. 2 informant, learned counsel submits that
the amount referred in the FIR has been changed from 13.59
crores to 14,71,59,272./-.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail
and submits that petitioners received the consignment of paddy
from the informant worth several crores and with an intention to
deceive and cheat the informant has misappropriated a huge
amount. On the guarantee of the informant, the farmers of the
locality made available a huge quantity of paddy for supplying it
to the petitioners, but the petitioners, after having received
paddy, paid in installments, failed to pay the further amount.
7. Learned counsel for the State argued that the
petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein
that rice in lieu of paddy was supplied to the informant, but the
truck by which the rice was allegedly supplied to the informant
was not found genuine inasmuch as the number of the truck that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23940 of 2025(10) dt.11-02-2026
4/5
was provided in the supplementary affidavit by the petitioners
was found fake and forged.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the materials on record.
9. Upon bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that there
was a business transaction between petitioners’ firm and the
informant. The firm was supplied paddy by the informant worth
several crores of rupees and it is admitted in the FIR itself that a
sum of approximately Rs. 11 crores has already been paid by the
petitioners to the informant. It further appears that a notice
under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, has been served upon the petitioners which has been
admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been
submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners are
ready to abide by the notice issued under Section 35(3) B.N.S.S.
and shall cooperate, with the investigation.
10. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact
that notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has already been served upon the
petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that, at present, there is
no immediate apprehension of arrest of the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, the present application is disposed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23940 of 2025(10) dt.11-02-2026
5/5
with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court for
anticipatory bail at the appropriate stage, in the event there
arises a reasonable apprehension of their arrest by the police.
12. It is expected that the investigating agency shall
proceed strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender
Kumar Antil v. CBI & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51,
and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Another, reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273, as well as the decisions of this Court in
Naushad Ansari v. State of Bihar (Criminal Misc. No. 3536 of
2024) and Asha Baitha v. State of Bihar (Criminal Misc. No.
44659 of 2024).
13. This anticipatory bail application is disposed
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…