Patna High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Kumar, was arrested in connection with a 2015 case alleging offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly obtaining a liquor‑shop licence in the name of an informant and evading taxes. The petitioner contended that the informant fabricated the complaint to recover money he had deposited on the informant’s behalf, and that he had previously filed a complaint against the informant. The State, represented by an Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the petitioner used forged documents and left tax liabilities on the informant. After hearing the parties, the court considered the length of the petitioner’s custody, the filing of the charge‑sheet, and the alleged false nature of the complaint. The court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS, including attendance in court and a relative as a bailor. The petitioner was ordered to be released subject to these conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for the alleged IPC offences.
- Whether the alleged fraud and use of forged documents justify denial of bail.
- Whether Section 480(3) of the BNSS is applicable in granting bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 480
- Indian Penal Code — s. 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- liquor licence
- IPC offences
- false complaint
- tax evasion
- Section 480(3) BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4198 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-638 Year-2015 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Gupta Son of Jamadar Prasad
Resident of village- Dumari, Ps- Yogapatti, Dist- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh P., Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Md. Sufiayn, Advocate
Miss Tooba Hera, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned APP for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 638 of 2015
registered for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 467,
468, 471, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. As per prosecution case, the petitioner applied in
the name of the complainant/informant for allotment of liquor
shop and started doing business in the name of the informant,
though there was no knowledge to the informant. However, as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4198 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
the petitioner did not pay the taxes, notice was received and the
informant came to know about the fraud being committed
against him.
04. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case. Prior to lodging of the complaint,
the petitioner gave a notice to the informant for return of money
deposited on behalf of the informant by this petitioner to the
authority. When the informant did not return the money, the
petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 1965 of 2015 against the
informant. In order save his skin, the informant lodged this false
case. The informant himself participated in all process before
the Excise Department to obtain the license and when the tax of
the department becomes due against him, the informant hatched
up this plan to grab the entire money of the department as well
as Rs. 15,16,800/- of the petitioner. The informant has,
thereafter, with similar allegation lodged Bettiah Town P.S. Case
No. 252 of 2022 after seven years of occurrence stating another
story to implicate this petitioner. Learned senior counsel further
submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025 and
charge sheet has been submitted. The petitioner is having
antecedent of 25 cases, out of which, final forms have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4198 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
submitted in 10 cases and the petitioner has been acquitted in
three cases and is on bail in other cases.
05. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently
opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner
used forged and fabricated documents of informant for getting
license of the liquor shop and left the liability of payment of
taxes upon this informant.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the
earlier lodged complaint case of the petitioner and also
considering the improbable nature of allegation and further
considering the period of custody of the petitioner along with
submission of charge-sheet, the petitioner above named is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
West Champaran at Bettiah/court concerned in connection with
Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 638 of 2015, subject to the
conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of BNSS and the
following conditions:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4198 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of
the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and
every date fixed by the court below.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail
bond of the petitioner will be liable to be
cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
U T
Checking your session…