Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Animesh Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions.

Summary

Animesh Kumar Das and his wife Neha Kumari were accused in a FIR of fraud amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 in a land sale dispute. They claimed the money was partially returned and that the matter was essentially civil, with the FIR filed belatedly. The petition sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, arguing that Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) was inapplicable. The court noted the clean antecedents of the petitioners, the return of Rs. 1,00,000, and the civil nature of the dispute, and therefore inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The court ordered bail on furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond each with two sureties, subject to cooperation with investigation and verification of criminal antecedents.

Issues considered

  • Whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence justifying denial of anticipatory bail
  • Whether Section 318(4) of the BNS applies to the present civil dispute
  • Whether the petitioners' clean antecedents and partial return of money warrant grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • fraud
  • land sale dispute
  • civil nature
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31536 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2025 Thana- Manikpur District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
           1.     Animesh Kumar Das S/o Dinesh Das R/o Village - Konipar, P.S. - Manikpur,
                  Dist. - Lakhisarai.
           2.    Neha Kumari Wife of Animesh Kumar Das R/o Village - Konipar, P.S. -
                 Manikpur, Dist. - Lakhisarai.

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramotar Mahto R/o Village - Bakarchak, P.S. - Manikpur,
                 Dist. - Lakhisarai.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Manohar Prasad Singh
                 For the State            :        Mr.Sanjay Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-05-2026                          Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126,

                   115(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS in connection with

                   Manikpur P.S.Case No. 17 of 2025.

                                 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

                   petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. This is a case of civil nature and section 318(4) of

                   the BNS is not applicable to the present case.

                                 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31536 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                            2/3




          anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                       5. From the reading of the FIR, it appears that

          allegation against the petitioners is of taking money to the tune

          of Rs. 1,75,000/- by fraud with regard to sale of land to the

          informant. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- was transferred by the

          informant to petitioner no. 1 through Mobile PhonePe. Another

          Rs. 50,000/- was also paid to the petitioner no. 1 on 05.04.2024,

          and it is also alleged that the informant paid further Rs. 75,000/-

          in cash, of which there is no proof.

                       6. It is contended by the learned counsel for

          petitioners that Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been returned to the

          informant, and the documents with regard to payment have been

          brought on record by way of Annexure- P/2 series. The

          antecedents of both the petitioners are clean.

                       7. Manifestly, the dispute arose between informant

          and the petitioners relating to the purchase/sale of the land and

          also the FIR has been belatedly filed on 03.03.2025, whereas the

          occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 02.02.2025.

          Considering these aspects of the matter, I am inclined to grant

          privilege of anticipatory bail to both the petitioners.

                       8. Let the petitioners, as named above, in the event of

          their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31536 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                                       3/3




                     enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

                     Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each

                     to the satisfaction learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-

                     II, Lakhisarai in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 17 of

                     2025, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2)

                     of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the

                     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and subject to further

                     condition that:-

                                  (i) the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation/

                     trial.

                                   (ii) the learned court below would, however, verify

                     the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, and in case it is

                     found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal

                     antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of

                     bail bonds of the petitioners. However, it is expected that the

                     verification process would be done expeditiously without

                     causing any delay.


                                              (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

HR/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.