Patna High Court
Bharat KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a bond and sureties under section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Bharat Kumar, a finance officer at Mahindra Finance, was implicated in a criminal case involving alleged offences under sections 147, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of the IPC relating to a disputed sale of two Hyva trucks. He contended that his role was limited to facilitating vehicle loans and that he had no authority over the sale, purchase, or possession of the vehicles, and that the informant falsely implicated him to avoid payment of EMIs. The petitioner sought bail, emphasizing his clean antecedent and lack of involvement in the alleged offences. The State opposed the bail application. The Court, considering the petitioner’s clean record, the circumstances of the case, and the provisions of section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ordered that bail be granted upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving alleged offences under sections 147, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 406, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- section 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Indian Penal Code
- clean antecedent
- financial officer
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3082 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1924 Year-2023 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
======================================================
Bharat Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar @ Rosh Sinha R/o House no 109, Road No
08, Shastri Nagar, PO- Chandauti, PS- Rampur, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aniket Kumar Thakur , Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar , APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State .
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offence punishable under sections 147, 406, 420, 504, 506
and 120B of the I.P.C .
3 . As per prosecution story, the informant entered
into an agreement on 03.02.2021 for sale of two Hyva Trucks in
favour of one Ram Prasad Madiya and paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in
advance and agreed to pay rest Rs. 37,00,000/- on installments
but after few installments, he stopped the payment. It is alleged
that accused persons had signed as witnesses in the agreement.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the
relevant time , petitioner was working as a financer in Mahindra
Finance and his professional role was strictly limited to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3082 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
facilitate vehicle loans for customers as per company policy .
He had no authority , role or involvement in the sale , purchase ,
rent or possession of vehicles. As a matter of fact, informant
purchased four Hyva Trucks (14-tyre), two through Mahindra
Finance and other two through Tat Finance . Informant was
known to the petitioner since 2019 and as such, ; petitioner only
helped informant to purchase two Hyva Trucmks with the help
of Mahindra Finance where he was posted. Subsequently, due to
corona and ill health of the daughter of informant, he was
unable to pay the EMI of the trucks and therefore, petitioner
suggested informant to let his vehicles on rent and paid the EMI
but not a single money was paid by the informant to the
petitioner. Informant approached petitioner to arrange
buyers/renters for the said vehicles. Petitioner considering the
good relation with informant himself and even asked relatives to
provide financial help of Rs. 13 lakhs, 19 thousand, 9 hundred.
It is further submitted that informant withing giving any
information to petitioner made an agreement to sell the vehicles
with other accused persons and when petitioner demanded his
money as well as his relative’s money, informant falsely
implicated this petitioner in the present case , just to avoid the
payment of EMI. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3082 of 2026(2) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
5 . Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
petition .
6. Considering the clean antecedent of this petitioner,
materials available on record and other circumstances of the
case , in the event of arrest or surrender within eight weeks from
today, let the petitioner, as named above, be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Nawada in connection with Nawada
Town P.S. Case No. 1924 of 2023 , subject to the conditions laid
down under section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita ( BNSS), 2023 .
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…