Patna High Court
Chandrasekhar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandrasekhar Singh, was implicated in a complaint (No. 632 of 2024) alleging offences under Sections 318(1), 318(4) and 351(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023, relating to a disputed sale of a brick‑kiln partnership. The complainant claimed that while three partners, including the petitioner, signed the sale agreement, two others did not and subsequently used force to prevent the complainant from operating the kiln. The petitioner argued that the complaint contains no specific allegation against him, that he had indeed signed the agreement, and that there is no accusation of cheating against him. He sought anticipatory bail, citing a clean antecedent and noting that a co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail in a similar matter. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is sufficiently implicated to deny anticipatory bail under Sections 318 and 351 of the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act, 2023 — s. 318(1), 318(4), 351(2), 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act
- brick kiln dispute
- sale agreement
- cheating
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3113 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-632 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Chandrasekhar Singh S/o Ramkeshwar Prasad Singh @ Ram Keshwan Singh
R/o vill - ward no. 21, Chintamani Chak, P.S.- Mokamah, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ramdev Prasad Singh S/o Late Baiju Prasad Yadav R/o vill - Gopkita, P.S.-
Pandarakh, Distt.- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Sameer, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 632 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 318(1), 318(4), 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant has
alleged that all the five named accused persons, including the
petitioner, were running a brick kiln. It has been alleged that all
the partners of the brick kiln had to execute an agreement of sale
in favour of the informant and for that they had also paid the full
consideration money of Rs. 8,11,000/-. However, the sale letter
was signed by three of the partners, namely, Chandrasekhar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3113 of 2026(4) dt.22-06-2026
2/4
Singh (petitioner), Krishnanandan Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar,
however, two of the partners, namely, Purshottam Singh and
Ashok Singh, were not signing the agreement paper and
thereafter, with the help of henchmen, they stopped the
complainant from running the brick kiln.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, and from the
perusal of the complaint, it is evident that nothing has been
alleged against the petitioner and in fact, from the averments of
the complainant, it would be clear that the petitioner had in fact
put his signature along with two other accused persons. It has
further been submitted that the complainant has not alleged
anything against the petitioner as far as further running of the
brick kiln is concerned and there is no allegation of cheating
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that similarly
situated co-accused, namely, Krishnandan Kumar has already
been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
66406 of 2025. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3113 of 2026(4) dt.22-06-2026
3/4
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of eight weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(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 Complaint Case No.
632 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the
petitioner shall be his close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain
physically present in Court on each date of
the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two
consecutive dates, or in violation of the
terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by
the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found
involved in similar nature of offence in
future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3113 of 2026(4) dt.22-06-2026
4/4
petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall
take steps for cancellation of bail bond of
the petitioner. However, the acceptance of
bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or
in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.