Patna High Court
Pratik Kumar Singh @ Pratik SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to a bail bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioners, Pratik Kumar Singh and Dinesh Dubey, dealers of Japanese harvester machines, were accused in Complaint Case No. 99 of 2024 of supplying a used harvester with a tampered engine and forged company sticker, attracting offences under IPC sections 406, 420 and 34. They applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the machine was sold in good faith, that the complainant had mishandled it for two years, and that the complaint was filed three years after purchase, making it a consumer dispute. The State opposed the bail. The court noted the delayed filing, the petitioners' clean antecedent, and the nature of the dispute, and consequently ordered that they be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of offences under IPC sections 406, 420 and 34.
- Whether the three‑year delay in filing the complaint and the petitioners' clean antecedent justify bail.
- Whether the nature of the dispute (consumer transaction) affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- consumer dispute
- clean antecedent
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- harvester machine
- forgery
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36684 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DEHRI-ON-SONE
District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Pratik Kumar Singh @ Pratik Singh S/o Late Shyam Narayan Singh
Resident of Village - Civil Line Road, Tarachand Complex Robertsganj, P.S.
- Robertsganj, Dist. - Sonbhadra(U.P.)
2. Dinesh Dubey @ Dinesh Chandra Dubey S/o Late Ram Bahal Dubey
Resident of Village - G-53 1st floor, Sohna Road, Sourth City - 2 Islampur -
97, P.S. - Islampur, Dist. - Gurgaon(Hariyana).
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dr. Raghwandra Deo Singh S/o Late Lakhan Deo Singh R/o Vill. - New
Dilliya Ward no. 21, P.S. - Dehri, Dist. - Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the complaint, are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case
No. 99 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is to supply the
old harvester machine to the complainant with tampered engine
and chassis number having forged sticker of the company
affixed thereon.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36684 of 2026(3) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
submitted that petitioners are the dealer of harvester machine,
which was imported from Japan. It is pointed out that service of
harvesting machine was to be done by trained and authorized
persons of the company, but it was handled roughly by the
complainant himself for long two years due to which certain
engine related problem surfaced, whereafter in very planned and
formulated manner, the present complaint was filed after
passing of three years in the year 2024.
5. It is further argued that petitioners being dealer
received harvester machine as booked by the complainant vide
invoice dated 01.11.2021, which is at page ‘5’ of supplementary
affidavit dated 18.06.2026, and was sold to the complainant
through Invoice dated 01.12.2021 issued by the firm of
petitioners i.e. M/s Aparajita Automobiles. It is argued that the
allegation maximum attract consumer dispute. Petitioners
claimed clean antecedent.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as complaint in issue admittedly lodged
after three years of purchase of harvesting machine, coupled
with the fact that petitioners are men of clean antecedent,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36684 of 2026(3) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
accordingly, both above-named petitioners, in the event of their
arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from this order,
are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Dehri at Rohtas/concerned court in
connection with Complaint Case No. 99 of 2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.