Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Aman KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where a bail application under Section 82 CrPC has already been initiated.

Summary

Aman Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a complaint (No.1354 of 2016) alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 323, 504 and NI Act section 138 for taking Rs.1,75,000, issuing a bounced cheque and not returning the money. The prosecution contended that the petitioner failed to repay the amount and ignored a legal notice. The petitioner claimed innocence and asserted that he had returned the full amount. The Court observed that a regular bail process under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code had already been initiated against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable and rejected it.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a regular bail application under Section 82 CrPC is already pending

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 82 CrPC
  • cheque bounce
  • fraud
  • criminal procedure
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Negotiable Instruments Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31947 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1354 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                          Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Aman Kumar S/o Bachchan Thakur Resident of Mohalla- Patel Nagar Road
                 No. 6 Babu Chowk, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna
                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Ranjan Kumar S/o Late Collector Singh R/o Baba Chowk, Patel Nagar,
                  Road no. 6, P.S.- Patliputra, Dist.- Patna
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr.Girish Singh, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :     Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

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

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Complaint Case No.1354 of 2016 registered for the offence

                   under Sections 420, 406, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code

                   and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

                                3. The prosecution case in brief is that petitioner has

                   taken Rs. 1,75,000/- rupees from the complainant with condition

                   that he will return the said money with in 08 to 10 months but

                   petitioner has not returned the said money to the complainant.

                   The petitioner has given a cheque and the said cheque was

                   dishonored by the bank due to insufficient balance. After that

                   complainant sent a legal notice to the petitioner but petitioner
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31947 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
                                                      2/2




                    not replied on legal notice. Thereafter complainant filed a

                    complaint petition before the court.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                    petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and he has

                    falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the

                    petitioner further submits that petitioner has returned the total

                    amount.

                                 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear

                    that the processes under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has already been

                    initiated against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the

                    present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and is

                    accordingly rejected.


                                             (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

Prakash Narayan
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.