Patna High Court
Md. Nasim Ansari @ Mohd. Naseem Ansar @ Md. Nasim @ Md. Nasim AnsarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to a cash bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Nasim Ansari, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the BPID Act, 2017, alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy involving a loan of Rs. 4 lakh. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, that the dispute was essentially civil, and that he had been falsely implicated by the informant. He also argued that no family‑initiated missing‑person case existed and that the informant should have pursued a civil remedy. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the submissions, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, while reserving the right to cancel bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and BPID Act, 2017.
- Whether the allegations constitute a civil dispute that does not warrant criminal prosecution.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- criminal conspiracy
- BPID Act
- civil dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4181 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2024 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada
======================================================
Md. Nasim Ansari @ Mohd. Naseem Ansar @ Md. Nasim @ Md. Nasim
Ansar S/o Md. Mojibul Haque Resident of Village - Sherpur, P.S.-Sirdalla,
District- Nawada,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of BPID Act, 2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since
17.02.2025 and the informant alleges that petitioner had taken
loan of Rs. 4 Lakhs from him in his account, with an assurance
that amount of Rs. 28,000/- shall be paid every month, further
after paying the first installment, the petitioner went missing and
was informed by the petitioner’s family members that a case
relating to missing of petitioner has been instituted, but
informant enquired then came to know that petitioner along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4181 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
his family members had cheated several people and the amount
is more than crore as detailed in the FIR and missing of the
petitioner is a ploy to misappropriate money of the innocent
people
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is asserted and submitted that no case by family
members of the petitioner was instituted with an allegation that
petitioner went missing, the said allegation has been alleged
only to give seriousness to the case to portray the petitioner as a
fraud. It is also submitted that the informant in the FIR has not
disclosed the P.S. case number instituted by the family members
of the petitioner alleging that he is missing. It is also submitted
that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that informant is claiming that he gave a loan
amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs and the same has not been returned, as
such, the dispute is civil. It is also submitted that informant
instead of instituting an FIR ought to have approached the Court
of competent civil jurisdiction for recovering his money. It is
further submitted that though in the FIR, it is alleged that
petitioner cheated several innocent people, but then petitioner
has antecedent of only case, but then the said case was instituted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4181 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
by his agnates in which petitioner was granted bail by the
learned District Court. It is also submitted that charges have
been framed recently.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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 Sirdalla
P.S. Case No. 403 of 2024.
7. It is made clear that if the learned Trial Court
comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release, is trying
to delay the trial in any manner, in that event the learned Trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…