Patna High Court
Indu JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail, subject to conditions, as she has a clean antecedent and a prima facie case for release.
Summary
Indu Jha applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Kaluahi PS No. 160/2025) alleging she, with a co‑accused, cheated Rs. 15 lakh by promising a job. She claimed innocence, a clean antecedent, and that the matter was essentially civil. The State opposed bail. The court examined the allegation and referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that an agreement to commit a crime, when not consummated, does not itself constitute an offence. Considering the petitioner’s clean record and prima facie case, the court ordered her release on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The order also directed verification of any other criminal antecedents, after which the bail order would lapse if adverse findings emerged.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the allegations of cheating and conspiracy to commit an offence.
- Whether an unexecuted agreement to commit a crime amounts to an offence under the applicable statutes.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and prima facie innocence justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- cheating
- conspiracy
- agreement to commit offence
- clean antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- civil nature of dispute
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2655 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2025 Thana- KALUAHI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Indu Jha Wife of Laxman Jha Resident of Village- Haripur, P.S.- Kaluahi,
District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Adesh Raj Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 160/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 316,318(4),3(5) of the
BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioner, along with co-accused Raushan Jha, has cheated of
Rs. 15 lakh from the informant on the pretext of providing job
to his son.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she has
falsely been implicated in the present case. The matter being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2655 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
purely civil in nature. The petitioner who is having clean
antecedent, seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR, this court finds that if two persons agree to commit an
act which is an offence in eye of law and the agreement failed
because the crime could not be committed, it cannot be said that
it constitutes an offence when the agreement itself was an
offence. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in
the case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Anr. vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and Ors. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 601 in para
nos. 15 and 16 which are as under:
“15. A reading of the entire material on
record clearly reflects that it was totally an unlawful
contract between the parties where money was
being paid for securing a job in the government
department(s) or private sector. Apparently, a suit
for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be
difficult to establish the same where the payment
was entirely in cash. Therefore, Respondent 6 found
out a better medium to recover the said amount by
building pressure on the appellant and his brother
by lodging the FIR. Under the threat of criminal
prosecution, maybe the appellant would have tried
to sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out
some money.
16. In conclusion, certain key
observations from the factual matrix warrant a
closer reflection. Prima facie, the conduct exhibited
by the parties involved appears tainted with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2655 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
suspicion, casting a shadow over the veracity of
their claims. The report from the previous inquiry
reflects a convoluted landscape and unveils a trail
of unethical, maybe even criminal behaviour from
both parties. The unexplained inordinate delay in
bringing these allegations to the police's attention
despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even
more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to the
authenticity of the claims. The facts stated, as well
as the prior inquiry, reveal a shared culpability
between the parties, indicative of a complex web of
deceit, and unethical transactions where even civil
remedies may not be sustainable. Thus, the object of
this dispute, manifestly rife with mala fide intentions
of only recovering the tainted money by coercion
and threat of criminal proceedings, cannot be
allowed to proceed further and exploit the time and
resources of the law enforcement agency.”
Considering the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner, having clean antecedent, has, prima facie, made out a
case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of her arrest or surrender
before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending /
Concerned Court in connection with Kaluahi P.S. Case No.
160/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2655 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what
has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application,
this order will automatically lose its force.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…