Saima KhalidversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36772 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2025 Thana- PATRAKARNAGAR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Saima Khalid Daughter of Khalid Ahmad Resident of B/602, H.B. Tower,
                 AIIMS Road, Phulwarisharif, Patna
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Isshan Siingh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026               Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                             2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Patrakarnagar P.S.

                   Case No. 418 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable

                   under Sections 406, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                             3. As per FIR, petitioner, who is known to the informant

                   invested Rs. 25 Lakhs with petitioner and her company known

                   as M/s Wayfareroworld Advent Pvt. Ltd., duly registered under

                   Companies Act, 1956, but the promised return of the aforesaid

                   investment was never paid to the informant and upon several

                   demands, only Rs. 1.5 Lakhs was returned to her.

                             4. Mr. Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner submitted that in fact the money on

                   behalf of the informant was invested with M/s Wayfareroworld
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36772 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




          Advent Pvt. Ltd., where this petitioner is also one of the

          director. It is pointed out that the company was not arrayed as an

          accused by the informant in the present case.

                   5. It is submitted by Mr. Dikshit that against invested

          amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs, total share of 3,333 units was allotted

          to the informant, each equivalent to Rs. 750/-.

                   6. It is further argued that during Covid-19, the company

          suffered huge loss and, therefore, the company was not in

          position to give desired return against investment, which is the

          sole reason for lodging this criminal case, which is completely

          unoccasioned and unwarranted considering the nature of

          dispute, which is purely civil in nature.

                   7. While concluding argument, it is submitted that

          petitioner is a lady of clean antecedent.

                   8. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned

          counsel appearing for the informant, while opposing the prayer

          for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that it is a clear

          case of breach of trust as relying upon the promise of the

          petitioner out of her old acquaintance informant invested Rs. 25

          Lakhs with her company. It is submitted that no balance sheet

          showing loss as said to be suffered by the company was ever

          given to her being share-holder of the company. However, he
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36772 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                     conceded fairly that the company was not arrayed as an accused

                     through present FIR.

                              9. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal submissions

                     and by taking note of the fact as the dispute primarily appears

                     arising out of investment issues, for which appropriate civil

                     remedy is available to the informant, coupled with the fact that

                     petitioner is a lady of clean antecedent, accordingly, above-

                     named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a

                     period of four weeks from this order, is 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna

                     /concerned court in connection with Patrakarnagar P.S. Case No.

                     418 of 2025, 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