Patna High Court
Vikash Kunal @ Vikash Kumar @ PappuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner refunds the remaining amount and complies with the bail bond terms.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by Vikash Kunal, who was implicated in a complaint alleging fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the IT Act for promising a government tender to the complainant, receiving large sums of money, issuing a bounced cheque and threatening the complainant. The petitioner claimed he had only received part of the money and was willing to return the balance, and he sought relief to avoid arrest. The court examined the allegations but limited its consideration to the bail application without delving into the merits of the case. It granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and a condition that the petitioner refund the remaining amount of Rs 15,87,053 by bank draft. The order also warned that failure to comply would lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a complaint case involving alleged offences under Sections 384, 386, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B), 34 of the IPC and Sections 72, 72(A), 73, 74 of the IT Act
- Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to refund the alleged amount justifies the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 34, 384, 386, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 72, 73, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- cheating
- IPC
- IT Act
- bail conditions
- complaint case
- tender fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33254 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-681 Year-2024 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
Vikash Kunal @ Vikash Kumar @ Pappu son of Girish Prasad Singh @
Girish Singh Village -Jinedpur (Ginedpur), near middle School Ward No 5 PO
-Rajaura PS -Muffasil District -Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhishek Kumar son of Late Shambhu Prasad Singh village- Pokharia,
Ward no. 39, ps- Town, dist- Begusarai Proprietor M/S- Vaibhabhi Green
Enterprises, Begusarai, 103 Nirtu Niwas, Dak Banglow Near Kali Sthan
chowk Pokharia, ps- Town, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Adv.
For the State : Mrs.Sangeeta Sharma, APP
For the OP-2 : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sharma, Mr. Alok Anand and
Mrs. Pratibha Pandey, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 16-01-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to make correction in paragraph – 6 of the
supplementary affidavit.
2. Permission granted. It may be done in course of the
day.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
4. The petitioner apprehend his arrest in a complaint
case punishable for the offence under Sections 384, 386, 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33254 of 2025(6) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
and Sections 72, 72(A), 73, 74 of the I.T. Act.
5. As per complaint case, the complainant, who is
owner of Baibhavi Earth Green, was approached by this
petitioner, who promised him that he would help him to get
tender in Education Department, as a result of which, the
complainant paid huge amount on different dates either through
cash or in the bank account of this petitioner and other persons.
The accused also took digital signature of complainant, but the
tender was not awarded to complainant and when complainant
demanded his money, the petitioner and other accused refused
and also threatened to kill. It is further alleged that after
repeated requests by complainant, this petitioner gave a cheque
of Rs. 77,05,000/- to complainant, but the same got bounced.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner, who happens to be proprietor of Rayeoan metal, and
complainant are cousin brothers. He further submits that
petitioner denies payment of cash amount and admits that he has
only received Rs.26,75,000/- in his SBI bank account, out of
which, he has already returned Rs. 10, 87,947/- in the bank
account of Baibhavi Earth Green, whose proprietor is
complainant and as such, petitioner is ready to return the
remaining amount i.e. Rs. 15,87,053/- to the complainant, as per
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33254 of 2025(6) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
statement made in paragraph – 6 of the supplementary affidavit,
for which learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not
oppose and at the same time, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 submits that complainant has got receipt of cash
amount, which he had given to petitioner.
7. Keeping in view the undertaking given by the
petitioner, his prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
Accordingly, let the above named petitioner, in the event of
arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, 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 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Begusarai in
connection with Complaint Case No. 681 of 2024, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with further
following conditions:
“(A) At the time of furnishing bail-bond, the
petitioner shall refund remaining amount i.e. Rs.
15,87,053/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs eighty seven
thousand fifty three only) through Bank Draft in
the name of Abhhishek Kumar (complainant /
opposite party no. 2).
(B) If petitioner fails to comply the direction of
this Court, the learned Court below would be at
liberty to cancel the bail-bond of petitioner.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33254 of 2025(6) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
8. It is made clear that aforesaid order has been
passed only for considering the prayer for anticipatory bail
without going into the merit of the case.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
anay
U T
Checking your session…