Patna High Court
Sumit Kumar @ Sumit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to bail bonds and sureties, under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, Sumit Kumar and Anoj Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case registered under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023, relating to a loan dispute arising from their brick‑kiln business. They argued that the informant, a CRPF personnel, had falsely implicated them to coerce repayment of Rs. 4,89,300 and Rs. 1,50,000, and that the matter was essentially civil. The State opposed the bail, contending that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences. The Court examined whether the allegations warranted arrest and considered the power under Section 482(2) to grant anticipatory bail with conditions. Finding that the case appeared to be a civil dispute masquerading as a criminal offence and that the petitioners had clean antecedents, the Court ordered anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions. The application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR appears to be based on a civil dispute and possibly false allegations.
- Whether the offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023, justify arrest of the petitioners.
- Whether the court may impose conditions under Section 482(2) while granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- false criminal complaint
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- loan dispute
- brick kiln
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37443 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Yadav S/O Mahesh Yadav R/O Village-
Chandanpura, P.S.- Suryagarha, Distt- Lakhisarai.
2. Anoj Kumar @ Anuj Yadav S/O Mahesh Yadav R/O Village- Chandanpura,
P.S.- Suryagarha, Distt- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and
316(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he is posted with the CRPF, further Sumit, Anoj and
others are running a brick kiln jointly in the village and had
asked for loan, thus, an amount of Rs. 4,89,300/- was paid in the
account of Sumit through Phone Pe and an amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- in cash on direction of the informant was given to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37443 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
Mahesh and Anoj by Pramod, further they had assured that the
money would be returned and if they are not able to return the
amount then will execute sale deed with respect their land, but
neither the money has been returned nor sale deed with respect
to the land has been executed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that dispute is
civil in nature to which a criminal colour has been given. It is
further submitted that it appears that the instant criminal case
has been instituted with an intent to coerce the petitioners and
others into submission so that they under fear of arrest part with
the fanciful demand of the informant. It is also submitted that
even if what has been alleged in the FIR is a correct fact, in that
event the informant ought to have approached a Court of
competent civil jurisdiction for getting his grievance redressed,
but then a criminal case has been instituted for ulterior reasons.
It is also submitted that petitioner and others are running a brick
kiln and informant had purchased a piece of land in the village,
on which construction work was going on, for which the
petitioners were supplying bricks, accordingly, payments were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37443 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
made, but subsequently the present false case came to be
instituted for reasons best known to the informant..
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 222 of 2025 subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the
BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.