Patna High Court
AVINASH KUMAR SHARMA @ AVNASH KUMAR SHARMAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is maintainable and granted it to the petitioners subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Avinash Kumar Sharma and his father Pawan Kumar Sharma sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged against them under Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC alleging misappropriation of money from SBI customers. The complainant, Ritik Kumar, claimed the petitioners collected deposits and issued false receipts, but no specific amounts or customer affidavits were attached to the complaint. The petitioners argued that the complaint was false, motivated by a salary dispute, and that they would cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail. Relying on a Full Bench decision (Anil Kumar v. State of Bihar, 12‑07‑2023) that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable even after summons in a non‑bailable offence, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable when the accused has been served with a summons in a complaint case involving non‑bailable offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- non‑bailable offence
- IPC 409
- IPC 420
- complaint case
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37875 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1426 Year-2019 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. AVINASH KUMAR SHARMA @ AVNASH KUMAR SHARMA S/o
Pawan Kumar Sharma R/o Village- Amba, P.S.- Teghra, District- Begusarai,
At present R/o Village- Bihat, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
2. Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shiv Sagar Sharma @ Late Shiv Sagar
Mistri @ Late Ramsagar Sharma R/o Village- Amba, P.S.- Teghra, District-
Begusarai, At present R/o Village- Bihat, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ritik Kumar S/o Madan Mohan Prasad Sah R/o Kurha, P.O. and P.S.-
Sahebpurkamal, District- Begusarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Aryan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 17-03-2026 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 409 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
from perusal of the office report dated 21.01.2026, it would
manifest that the same records that the ordinary notice has been
personally received by the complainant/opposite party no. 2. It
is further submitted that the complainant/opposite party no. 2,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37875 of 2021(5) dt.17-03-2026
2/5
despite receiving the notice, chooses not to appear and contest.
It is next submitted that the case was earlier taken-up by a
learned Coordinate Bench on 16.06.2022 and the case was
directed to be listed along with Cr. Misc. No. 19124 of 2024
(Anil Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and connected matters) for
the reason that an issue whether anticipatory bail application is
maintainable or not after issuance of summons was pending
adjudication. It is also submitted that Cr. Misc. No. 19124 of
2024 was decided by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court by
judgment dated 12.07.2023 wherein it was held that an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable on behalf
of a person who has only been summoned in a complaint case as
apprehension of being arrested in a non-bailable offence
continues. It is further submitted that in the instant case also
summons were issued against the petitioners, as such,
petitioners had approached this Court when the case was
directed to be listed with the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous.
4. It is submitted that the complainant alleges that he
is the Coordinator of Save Solution Private Ltd. Company
which runs the Customer Service Centre of SBI. Further, the
petitioner no. 1 runs the Customer Service of SBI at
Bhagwanpur. It is next alleged that the customers on 30.03.1019
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37875 of 2021(5) dt.17-03-2026
3/5
came to know that petitioner no. 1 was neither present at the
centre nor in the house for which his father Pawan had instituted
Teghra P.S. Case No. 124 of 2019. Further, the complainant was
informed by the customers of the CSP Bhagwanpur that Avinash
(petitioner no. 1) used to collect money from them for
depositing and gave receipt by his hand, as such, customers
raised their voice. Further, that Avinash (petitioner no. 1) used to
give false receipt to the customers by hand when receipts were
to be used by the computer, thus, alleges that Avinash (petitioner
no. 1) by taking the customers into confidence took money from
them in name of depositing and misappropriated the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the complainant/opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that
no doubt, the complaint petition came to be instituted with an
allegation that customers complained against the petitioner no. 1
that he took money for depositing and issued receipt by hand
and thus misappropriated the amount but then no complain of
any customer is annexed with the complaint case. It is next
submitted that though allegation is of misappropriation but then
the complaint case does not even remotely suggest that as to
what amount was misappropriated by the petitioner no. 1. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37875 of 2021(5) dt.17-03-2026
4/5
also submitted that allegations are general and omnibus in
nature. It is further submitted that since petitioner no. 1 was
having dispute with the complainant/opposite party no. 2 with
regard to his salary, as such, the instant false complaint case
came to be instituted. It is next submitted that as far as petitioner
no. 2 is concerned, no specific allegation is alleged against him
and he came to be implicated merely for the reason that he is
father of petitioner no. 1. It is next submitted that petitioners
will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove their
innocence.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let 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 Complaint Case No. 1426C of 2019, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37875 of 2021(5) dt.17-03-2026
5/5
8. It is made clear that if the learned Trial Court
comes to a conclusion that petitioners, after being released on
anticipatory bail, are trying to delay the framing of charge or
after framing of charge are trying to delay the trial of the case in
both the conditions the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to
cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…