Vinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42000 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2026 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
           1.     Vinod Kumar, Son of Pannalal Singh,
           2.     Suresh Kumar, Son of Pannalal Singh
                  Both of resident of Village-Panapur, P.S.-Harsidhi, District-East Champaran,
                  Motihari
                                                                                 ... ... Petitioners
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                           ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. S.K. Lal, Senior Advocate
                                                  Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   02-07-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

                   learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State duly

                   assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant.

                                2. Both accused/petitioners is named in the FIR

                   and apprehending their arrest in connection with Harsidhi

                   P.S. Case No.51 of 2026 registered under Sections 318(4),

                   316(2), 308(4), 111(2)(b), 351(2) and 352 read with 3(5)

                   of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘B.N.S.’).

                                3. Allegation against petitioners is to cheat the

                   informant to the tune of Rs.2,81,00,000/-, as despite

                   receiving of fruits of the same value, they failed to pay the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42000 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            2/4




          informant’s company i.e. M/s. Maa Chamunda Fruits Centre

          through which, the petitioners received the supply of fruits.

                       4.    Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing

          for the petitioners submitted that the present allegation is

          maximum qua recovery of dues arising due to admitted fruit

          supply to the petitioners and his family members/others co-

          accused persons. It is submitted that the informant himself

          speaks through present FIR that initially the payment was

          made by the petitioners against supply of fruits but,

          subsequently, for last couple of years, the payment was not

          made       against      credit     supply      for   the   tune   of   Rs.

          2,81,00,000/-, which itself suggest that the petitioners were

          not under intention to cheat the informant and others from

          very inception of the business deal. The petitioners claimed

          clean antecedent.

                       5.      Learned APP duly assisted by Mr. Sitesh

          Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for informant, while

          opposing the prayer of bail submitted that the petitioners

          and other co-accused persons after repeated assurance failed

          to pay Rs.2,81,00,000/- to the informant’s company against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42000 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                            3/4




          supply of the fruits. It is pointed out that he has doubt qua

          clean antecedent of the petitioners.

                       6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

          taking note of fact, as the dispute primarily appears civil in

          nature i.e. for recovery of outstanding dues arising out of

          business deal, coupled with the fact that the facial aspects of

          FIR suggest that the petitioners were not under intention to

          cheat the informant from very inception of the business deal

          i.e. supply of fruits, accordingly, both petitioners, above-

          named, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court

          below within a period of four weeks from today, are directed

          to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M.,

          Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Harsidhi P.S.

          Case No.51 of 2026, 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’).

                       7.    The learned trial court is directed to verify the
                Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42000 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
                                                            4/4




                          criminal antecedent of the petitioners at the time of

                          furnishing of the bail bond in view of averment as made on

                          affidavit that they have no criminal antecedent and if,

                          petitioners found involved in any other criminal case prior to

                          lodging this FIR, their bail bonds shall not be accepted.



                                                         (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
    Sanjeet/-

U        T