Patna High Court
Most. Kamla DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that the dispute is primarily civil in nature and, given the petitioners' clean antecedent, they are entitled to bail.
Summary
Kamla Devi and Saurav Kumar were named in a criminal complaint (Case No. 880 of 2024) under Sections 318(4) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly failing to return security money of Rs.14.20 lakh that had been given against a shop they owned. The shop was rented to the complainant, who allegedly stopped paying rent, sub‑let the premises and retained possession, resulting in the petitioners not receiving rent for five years. The petitioners contended that the matter was a civil landlord‑tenant dispute concerning recovery of security money, not a criminal offence, and that they had clean antecedents. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, but the court noted the civil nature of the dispute and the petitioners' clean record. Accordingly, the court ordered their release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 each, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNS.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Sections 318(4) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita to a landlord‑tenant dispute over security money.
- Whether the complaint constitutes a cognizable criminal offence or is essentially a civil matter.
- The appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 352, 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- civil dispute
- landlord-tenant
- security money
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- CrPC
- clean antecedent
- complaint case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36723 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-880 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - PATNA CITY
District- Patna
======================================================
1. Most. Kamla Devi, W/o Late Mathura Prasad Patwa
2. Saurav Kumar @ Saurabh Kumar, S/o Late Mathura Prasad Patwa
Both are resident of Mohalla-Machharhatta, Patna City, P.S.- Khajekalan,
Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumar Rohit, S/o Santosh Kumar, R/o Village- Raipura, P.S.- Fatuha, Distt.-
Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Maharaj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Both accused/petitioners are named in the
complaint and apprehending their arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No.880 of 2024 in which cognizance has
been taken under Sections 318(4) and 352 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’).
3. As per FIR, the petitioners failed to return the
security money of Rs.14,20,000/- to informant, which was
given to the petitioners against a shop located in Patna City,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36723 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
which was given on rent to the complainant.
4. It is submitted that both the parties are
relatives. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioners that after paying agreed rent of Rs.
21,000/- per month, the complainant stopped to pay rent
and exceeding further, he sub-let the shop to third person
without any information and knowledge of the petitioners. It
is submitted that the complainant is still in possession of the
shop and is not paying agreed rent to the petitioners, which
is the only source of her livelihood as the petitioner no. 1 is
a widow lady. The rent of premises was not paid for last five
years.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that in view of
all such facts, the dispute primarily appears civil in nature for
which the present criminal prosecution is completely
unoccasioned and unwarranted. Both petitioners are of clean
antecedent.
6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact, as the dispute is primarily regarding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36723 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
recovery of security money out of admitted landlord-tenant
relationship, coupled with the fact that both petitioners are
of clean antecedent, accordingly, both petitioners, above-
named, are directed to be released on bail, in the event of
their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of
four weeks, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Patna City in connection with Complaint Case No.880
of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the CrPC/under Section 482(2) of the
BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.