Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bail bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Singh, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a complaint (No. 942 of 2024) filed under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he cheated his brother of Rs.36.25 lakh arising out of a family property partition. The complainant claimed that the brothers had partitioned property in 2012 but the petitioner refused to return the alleged share, and earlier complaints under IPC Sections 420 and 406 had been set aside. The petitioner argued that the matter was a civil family dispute and that the criminal complaint was an abuse of process. The State and the opposite party opposed bail, contending that the allegations of cheating were serious. The Court, after considering the familial relationship and the nature of the allegation, ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon surrender within four weeks, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties of equal amount.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a family dispute case involving alleged cheating under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the complaint constitutes an abuse of process warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- family dispute
- property partition
- cheating
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 316
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24917 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-942 Year-2024 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District-
Rohtas
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Late Daroga Singh R/O Village- Khapeda, PS-
Akhorigola, District- Rohtas At Present, R/O Mohalla- New Diliyan Sambika
Path, PS- Dehri, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh S/O Late Daroga Singh R/O Village- Khapeda,
PS- Akhorigola, District- Rohtas At Present, R/O A.B.R. College, Awadhut
Nagar, PS- Sasaram, District- Rohtas
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
Fo the OP no.2 : Mr. Manish Kumar no.1, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 who has appeared suo moto.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case no. 942 of 2024 registered under section
316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that he himself, the petitioner and others are full brother
between whom the partition has taken place in the year 2012.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24917 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
Thereafter the complainant proceeds to mention about the value
of DBS Construction being Rs.3.40 crores, Anish Hotel worth
Rs.60 lacs and other properties which has been retained by the
accused persons i.e. his brothers including the petitioner herein.
It is further stated by the complainant that the accused have
retained Rs.36.25 lacs of his which should be returned to him. It
is further stated that the partition being a family arrangement, no
document was prepared. Even on an earlier occasion in the year
2022, a complaint had been lodged under sections 420 and 406
of the Indian Penal Code besides other sections which was
finally set aside by order dated 24.7.2024 passed in Cr. Revision
no.292 of 2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-
11. The complainant finally states that the petitioner told him
that he would not return his share of Rs.36.25 lacs.
4. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner that from the relationship between the parties
and the contents of the complaint petition, it would be evident
that it is a case of family dispute between the parties relating to
distribution of properties though as per the case of the
complainant himself, partition has taken place between them in
the year 2012 itself. It is further submitted that filing of the
instant case is an abuse of the process of the Court. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24917 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the case.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by
learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits
that the petitioner is named in the complaint and there is direct
allegation against him of having cheated the complainant of a
large sum of money. It is not a case for grant of anticipatory
bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in
the complaint, the relationship between the parties and the
nature of allegation, in the facts of the case, it is directed that the
petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks,
be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint
Case no. 942 of 2024 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Rohtas at Sasaram.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…