Patna High Court
Poonam SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Poonam Singh and Raj Kumar Singh, sought pre‑arrest bail in a complaint (No. 4752(c) of 2021) alleging offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 323 and 504. The complainant, who runs a private hospital on the petitioners' premises under a rent agreement, claimed the petitioners misbehaved and threatened her after she discovered a purported false rent agreement. The petitioners contended they are innocent, asserting that the complainant’s husband issued a Rs. 30 lakh cheque that was dishonoured and that the complaint is vexatious and intended to avoid payment of rent. The State opposed bail. The Court, after hearing both sides, found a case‑in‑counter‑case scenario and held the complaint to be vexatious, granting the petitioners pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC/Section 482(2) BNSS. The Court also directed the District Court to verify any other criminal antecedents and to refer the civil aspects of the dispute to mediation.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting pre‑arrest bail in a case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 323 and 504.
- Whether the complaint is vexatious and essentially civil, thereby influencing the bail decision.
- Application of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS in granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 420, 504
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- vexatious complaint
- civil dispute
- mediation
- landlord‑tenant
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3051 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4752 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Poonam Singh W/o Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Mahatama Gandhi Nagar,
Kanti Factory Road, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna
2. Raj Kumar Singh S/o Late Ramdas Prasad Singh Resident of Mahatama
Gandhi Nagar, Kanti Factory Road, P.S.- Agamkuan, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunita Kumari Prasad W/o Dr. Dayanand Prasad R/o Flat no. 103, Rayshanti
Plaza, Kanti Factory Road, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Town and Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 4752(c) of 2021 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 504 of the
Indian Penal Code, in which learned Magistrate took cognizance
under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., the
complainant is running a private hospital in the petitioners’
premises under a duly executed rent agreement. She has claimed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3051 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
to have invested Rs. 50,00,000/- in establishing the hospital and
an additional Rs. 15,00,000/- towards its beautification and she
never defaulted in paying rent as per the terms of the agreement.
It is further alleged that, owing to ill health, she entrusted the
operation of the hospital to another person. Subsequently, upon
visiting the premises, she found the accused persons relying on
a purportedly false rent agreement with a third party to which
she protested, the accused including the petitioners had
allegedly misbehaved with her and threatened her of dire
consequences.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have
not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. It is
contended that, in fact, the husband of the complainant had
issued a cheque of Rs. 30,00,000/- towards payment of
outstanding rent, which was dishonoured, and a complaint case
in that regard is presently pending. The present complaint has
been filed with an intention not to return the due amount of rent
to the petitioners, therefore no case of breach of trust is made
out against the petitioners. The petitioners have clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3051 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the complaint. There is case and counter case between the
parties. The present complaint appears to be vexatious in nature.
Allegation is that the co-accused Md. Riyajuddin misbehaved
and abused the complainant as she failed to make payment of
Rs. 30 lakhs due to the petitioners and to save herself, the
complainant has filed the present complaint on false allegation, I
find that the petitioners who are landlord, have, prima facie,
made out a case to be released on bail.
7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna Sadar
in connection with Complaint Case No. 4752(c) of 2021, subject
to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C /
482(2) BNSS.
8. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners
are involved in some other cases as what has been stated in
Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3051 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
force.
9. The dispute primarily is civil in nature. Learned
District Court is further directed to examine the matter for
settlement of the dispute outside the court by way of mediation
in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11
SCC 673; S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vrs. The State of
Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1575
and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024 and take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Centre by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties to give effect to “Mediation for the
Nation 2.0”.
10. The bail application stands disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the
Patna High Court Mediation Centre for the purpose of record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…