Patna High Court
Nisar HaidarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a bail bond, sureties and compliance with statutory conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nisar Haidar, was arrested in connection with a fraud case (Madhubani P.S. Case No. 332 of 2025) alleging that he induced an informant to pay Rs. 3.70 lakh for a Hyundai car that was never delivered, issued dishonoured cheques and failed to refund the amount. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, contending that the dispute involved only Rs. 3.5 lakh, that the informant had received cash payment, and that the vehicle was later returned with the amount repaid in cash. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352 of the Indian Penal Code and a pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court considered the seriousness of the alleged fraud, the existence of a separate cheque‑bounce case, and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. It granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bail bond, two sureties, compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) of the relevant state law, and a direction to cooperate in the pending complaint case. Failure to comply would permit the informant to seek cancellation of the bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged fraud, cheating and cheque bounce under the IPC and Negotiable Instruments Act
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bihar law are appropriate
- Whether the petitioner’s cooperation in the pending Section 138 complaint is a condition for bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- cheque bounce
- Indian Penal Code
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- bail conditions
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25653 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2025 Thana- Madhubani T District- Purnia
======================================================
Nisar Haidar Son of Sheikh Nasim Uddin Resident of Village- Bharasia,
Jhagruchak, P.S.- Falka, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in
paragraph-8 of the bail application in course of day.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Madhubani P.S. Case No. 332 of 2025 in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 351(2), 352 of the BNS.
4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner
fraudulently induced the informant to pay Rs. 3,70,000/- for a
Hyundai Car that was never delivered subsequently issuing
dishonored cheques and failing to refund the amount.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
dispute in the present case relates to an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25653 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
and it would appear from the first information itself that the
informant claims to have paid this amount in cash and only Rs.
20,000/- was paid by way of the mobile phone. The FIR also
discloses that the vehicle was returned to the petitioner on
account of which the petitioner asserts that he had paid the
amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- back to the informant by cash.
However, a cheque earlier given to the informant has been
misused by presenting the same and getting it bounced. It has
also been submitted that the present case has been filed as
counter blast of the complaint filed by the present petitioner
against the informant with regard to threatening etc. It has also
been pointed out that with regard to bouncing of cheque, the
wife of the informant has already filed a complaint bearing C.A.
No. 4518 of 2025 (Annexure-3) under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act, in which the petitioner undertakes to cooperate.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
and also considering the fact that for bouncing of cheque,
complaint case under the N.I. Act has already been filed, let the
above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25653 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
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
Madhubani P.S. Case No. 332 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.
8. However, the petitioner is directed to appear in the
complaint case bearing C.A. No. 4518 of 2025 and cooperate in
the said case failing which the informant shall be at liberty to
file an application for cancellation of the present bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…