Patna High Court
Milan Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Milan Kumar Sah and his wife Madhu Devi applied for anticipatory bail in a complaint filed by Anju Kumari alleging offences under Sections 403 and 420 of the IPC. The petitioners contended that the complainant had previously been cordial but later filed a false case after a business dispute, and that the complainant failed to appear despite notice. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The court warned that the trial court could cancel the bail if the petitioners attempt to delay the framing of charge or the trial. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 403 and 420 IPC.
- Whether the complainant's failure to appear after notice impacts the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioners absconding or tampering with the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 403, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC 403
- IPC 420
- false implication
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4788 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-710 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Milan Kumar Sah Son of Late Basudev Sah R/o Village - Milki, P.S. -
Bihpur, Dist. - Bhagalpur.
2. Madhu Devi Wife of Milan Kumar Sah R/o Village - Milki, P.S. - Bihpur,
Dist. - Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anju Kumari D/o Late Basudeo Sah R/o Village - Nilkanth Nagar,
Tilkamanjhi Pranwati Line near Choti Railway Line, P.S. - Inshachak, Dist. -
Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Thakur
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 07-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
opposite party no.2, despite receiving registered notice on
18.04.2026, chooses not to appear and contest. It is also
submitted that from perusal of the office report dated
06.05.2026, it would manifest that the same records that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4788 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
opposite party no.2 refused to receive ordinary notice stating
that she has already received the notice through post.
4. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 has
antecedent of one case and petitioner no.2 is a person with clean
antecedent and is a woman and the complainant alleges that
petitioner no.1 is her brother and petitioner no.2 is wife of
petitioner no.1. Further, alleges that after her retirement, she
opened Milan Medical Hall for her brother after investing Rs.15
Lacs. Further, the petitioner no.1 had falsely given his name
with regard to land purchased by the complainant. It is next
alleged that the petitioner no.2 received the ATM of the
complainant, as on the acknowledgment receipt, it is recorded
that petitioner no.2 received the ATM on behalf of the
complainant. On enquiry from the bank, it transpired that an
amount of Rs.23,70,000/- was withdrawn from her account.
Accordingly, she informed the S.S.P., Bhagalpur and also sent
three legal notices to the petitioner but then no action was taken,
hence complaint petition was filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the complainant. It is next submitted that earlier the relationship
in between petitioners and the complainant was cordial but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4788 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
subsequently when the business picked up, the relationship
started deteriorating. It is also submitted that no doubt,
petitioner no.2 received the ATM of the complainant but then
the ATM was handed over to the complainant who withdrew
money and invested in the business but when relationships
soured the present false case came to be instituted. It is also
submitted that this amply demonstrates that why complainant
despite receiving notice chooses not to appear and contest. It is
further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial
to prove their innocence.
6. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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.710 of 2023, subject to the conditions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4788 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. The application stands allowed.
9. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioners are being released
on anticipatory bail are trying to delay the framing of charge or
after framing of charge are trying to delay the trial in any
manner, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…