Patna High Court
Pintu Singh @ Vinay Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Singh, was implicated in a complaint alleging extortion (IPC s.384) where he and others allegedly seized Rs.1 lakh from the complainant's son. The petitioner contended that the complaint was motivated by a tenancy dispute over premises used for a school he managed, and that the complainant omitted material facts. The complainant, Nandan Priyadarshi, testified that the incident occurred and that police were seen conversing with the accused. The High Court examined the allegations, the alleged suppression of the petitioner's criminal antecedent, and the tenancy context, and decided to grant anticipatory bail. The court ordered release on bail upon arrest or surrender within four weeks, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond and several conditions regarding appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and abstaining from further offences.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the circumstances of the extortion complaint?
- Whether the alleged omission of material facts and the tenancy dispute affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 384
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- IPC 384
- bail conditions
- tenancy dispute
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27843 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6564 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Pintu Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh S/o Late Bharat Singh R/o Village -
Damodarpur, P.S - Rosera, District - Samastipur Bihar - 848210
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nandan Priyadarshi S/o Late Shayam Narayan Mahto R/o - Ghaghaa Ghat
Road, P.S - Sultanganj, District - Patna, Bihar - 800006
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Nishant Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Nandan Priyadarshi, the complainant who
is appearing in person beside learned APP representing the
State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No.6564(C) of 2023 in which
cognizance has been taken under section 384 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per the complaint, the complainant alleged that
during the court hours, the petitioner alongwith other accused
came at his Vakalatkhana but due to the election in the District
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27843 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
Bar Association, he remain seated there till evening. As he
started his journey towards a motorcycle shop to purchase a new
motorcycle alongwith heavy cash, the allegation is that this
petitioner alongwith other accused again came and near the
western side of the B.N. College, on the point of pistols, took
away Rupees One Lakh from his son’s pocket. The alarm raised
by the complainant led to others come to the place but that time
the accused managed to escape. He went to the Pirbahore Police
Station but there saw the Sub-Inspector talking with the accused
and as such, he returned and then the complaint filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
facts which have not been incorporated in the complaint is that
he is a trustee as well as teacher in the school called DMP Holy
Mission School which is being operated from the premises
owned by the complainant on rental basis.
5. As he wanted the premises to be vacated, the
petitioner wanted some time to shift the school but he was not
ready to give that time and as a counter blast this complaint.
6. The complainant as recorded above, is appearing
and according to him the occurrence took place and as he found
the Police to be conversing with the accused, he chose to file
complaint. Further, the accused has criminal antecedent which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27843 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
was earlier suppressed before the learned Sessions Judge.
7. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
and the complaint beside hearing the parties, the case is there,
the petitioner shall be facing the music, though the complainant
submits that criminal antecedent was suppressed by the
petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, he has also chosen
not to record the facts that the petitioner is a tenant in his
premises, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend
him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XIV,
Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No.6564(C) of 2023
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27843 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for next six months to mark his
attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…