Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ranjit Kumar Gupta @ Ranjit KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to a bond, sureties, and proof of repayment of the Rs 70,000.

Summary

The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar Gupta, was named in an FIR for allegedly withdrawing Rs 70,000 from an informant’s bank account and transferring it to his own account via ATM, constituting an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. He contended that he is a vegetable vendor in Delhi and was unaware of how the amount was credited to his account, asserting that he is the victim and is willing to return the full sum to the informant. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court, noting the petitioner’s offer to repay the amount and the nature of the offence, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to proof of repayment and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order directed the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and to furnish the required sureties and proof of repayment.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case under Section 420 IPC.
  • Whether the petitioner’s claim of being a victim and his willingness to return the money justify bail.
  • Whether bail can be conditioned under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Section 420 IPC
  • fraud
  • criminal procedure
  • BNSS 2023
  • ATM transaction

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39179 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2019 Thana- DUMARIYA District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Ranjit Kumar Gupta @ Ranjit Kumar, S/o Jitendra Saw, Resident of Village -
                 Rampur, P.S. - Makhdumpur Chhatiana, District - Jehanabad.
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner
                                                 Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Shila Rani, W/o Binod Prajapati, R/o Village - Mandar, P.S.-Dumariya, Dist.
                  - Gayaji.
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Parties
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Md Jubair Ansari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   18-06-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumaria P.S.

                   Case No.01 of 2019 registered under Section 420 of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                                3.     As per FIR, the petitioner was alleged to

                   withdrew          Rs.        70,000/-        from       informant’s           A/c

                   No.2385000100024700                  (PNB,       Branch-Dumariya,         Dist.-

                   Gaya)        and           transferred      it     in    his      own         A/c

                   No.2389000100083958                    (PNB,       Branch-Umta,           Dist.-

                   Jehanabad) through ATM.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39179 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                            2/3




                       4.     It is submitted by learned counsel appearing

          for petitioner that petitioner is working as a vegetable

          vendor at Delhi and he himself is the victim of the

          circumstances, as he could not understand that how the

          amount of Rs. 70,000/- was credited to his account. It is

          submitted that his only fault is this that he could not

          informed this transaction to the bank to take appropriate

          steps to return the said amount to the same account or to

          take other appropriate lawful action. Learned counsel

          appearing for petitioner made statement at Bar that he is

          under instruction that petitioner is ready to pay entire

          amount of Rs.70,000/- to the informant at the time of

          furnishing of bail bond through RTGS to the bank account of

          the informant or by demand draft.

                       5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of bail.

                       6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

          taking note of fact as petitioner offered to return

          Rs.70,000/- to the informant, accordingly, the petitioner,

          above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the

          court below within a period of four weeks from today, is
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39179 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                    directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

                    Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the

                    like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial

                    Magistrate, First Clas, Sherghati (Gaya Ji) in connection with

                    Dumaria P.S. Case No.01 of 2019, subject to the conditions

                    as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

                    Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 482(2) of the

                    Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’)

                    and with further condition:-

                                 (i) That bail bond of the petitioner shall be

                    accepted only after showing the proof that Rs.70,000/- is

                    duly transferred to the account of the informant either by

                    RTGS or in alternate through bank draft duly received by

                    informant.


                                                        (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
    Sanjeet/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.