Patna High Court
Priti KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioners' application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Priti Kumari and Kumar Gaurav, applied for anticipatory bail in a complaint (Case No. 4574 of 2022) alleging offences under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged that the petitioners received advance payments of Rs. 20 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh for the purchase of a piece of land, but the land was sold to another buyer and the amounts were not returned. The petitioners claimed they would make efforts to return the money, but after the hearing they could not be contacted and no restitution had been made. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the fraud and the lack of any concrete undertaking. Justice Satyavrat Verma, after hearing both sides, declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding no sufficient ground to extend the privilege.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in a case involving alleged fraud under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act
- Whether the petitioners' alleged willingness to return the money constitutes a sufficient ground for bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 138 NI Act
- fraud
- criminal procedure
- bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4877 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4574 Year-2022 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Priti Kumari W/o Kumar Gaurav Director Shiwansh Logis Presently office
at Nand Vihar Colony, Bela, PS.- Mithanpura, Dist- Muzafarpur, W/o Kumar
Gaurav, R/o Majhauli Pachdahi, PO- Pachdahi, PS- Bariyarpur,
Dist-.Muzzafarpur, Bihar-843119
2. Kumar Gaurav S/o Mr. Chandra Bhusan Mishra R/o Majhauli Pachdahi, PO-
Pachdahi, PS- Bariyarpur, Dist-.Muzzafarpur, Bihar-843119
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pratik Parasar S/o Late Shashibhushan Mishra R/o vill - Mahammadpur
Mohan, P.S.- Sakra, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh- A.P.P.
Mr.Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Ms.Punam Shrivastava
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 26-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in Muzaffarpur Complaint Case No.4574 of 2022
registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N. I. Act.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant submits
that the case was taken up on 12.03.2026, when one week time
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4877 of 2026(5) dt.26-03-2026
2/3
was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
ground that endeavours would be made for returning the amount
which was created in the account of the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant further
submits that an amount of Rs.20 Lacs was credited in the
account of petitioner no.1 and Rs.3 Lacs in the account of
petitioner no.2 by the complainant by way of advance money
for purchasing a piece of land for which consideration was fixed
at Rs.35 Lacs, but then, the land was sold to a different
purchaser, but the amount which was credited in the account of
the petitioners was not returned, as such, on 12.03.2026 time
was taken.
5. Today when the case is taken up, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
petitioners had instructed him to make submission that
endeavours would be made to return the amount which was
credited in their account, but as of now, despite his best
endeavours, he could not contact the petitioners nor the
petitioners contacted him after 12.03.2026.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4877 of 2026(5) dt.26-03-2026
3/3
7. The prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.