Patna High Court
Anil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is maintainable even after initiation of Section 82 proceedings where the dispute is essentially civil, and the petitioner was therefore released on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Kumar, was named in a 2018 complaint alleging offences under IPC sections 420 and 406 and NI Act section 138 for a dishonoured cheque of Rs. 4 lakh related to a land sale. The petitioner argued that the dispute was essentially civil, that the sale consideration had already been paid, and that he was willing to provide interim protection under Section 143(A) of the NI Act. The informant opposed anticipatory bail, noting that proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC had been initiated against the petitioner for his failure to appear before the trial court. The petitioner contended that anticipatory bail remains maintainable despite Section 82 proceedings, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh). The Court held that the civil nature of the dispute does not bar anticipatory bail and granted bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC have been initiated.
- Whether the civil character of a land dispute bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the interim protection under Section 143(A) of the NI Act affects the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 CrPC
- cheque bounce
- civil dispute
- land sale
- Section 138 NI Act
- IPC 420
- IPC 406
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51059 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-749 Year-2018 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
Anil Kumar Son Of Ram Pukar Singh Village- Charkawan, Uppardih, P.S.-
Rafiganj, Distt.- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bhola Kumar Son of Awadhesh Kumar Sinha R/o Village- Charkawa,
Nichlidih, P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Adv.
For the Informant : Mrs. Rabia Gulnaz, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the complaint case
and apprehending his arrest in connection with Gaya
Complaint Case No. 749 of 2018 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 420/ 406 of IPC and
Section 138 of NI Act
3. As per complaint, the cheque as issued by
petitioner for sum of Rs. 4 lakh was dishonored which was
issued in connection with land deal against Rs. 63 lakh
but was never paid to the complainant against execution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51059 of 2024(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
of sale deed.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that dispute between the
parties primarily appears civil in nature. It is submitted
that parties are well acquainted with each other. Mr.
Ravindra Kumar made a statement at bar that the
amount in issue for execution of sale deed in favor of
petitioner have already been paid to the complainant/
vendor. It is pointed out that petitioner even ready to pay
the interim protection to the complainant in terms of
Section 143(A) of NI Act. While concluding arguments, it
is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by Mrs. Rabia
Gulnaz learned counsel for the informant while opposing
the prayer of bail submitted that the petitioner failed to
appear before learned trial court and therefore,
proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was initiated
against him. It is submitted that in view of fact as
proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. initiated against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51059 of 2024(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
petitioner the prayer of anticipatory bail is not
maintainable. However, she conceded that in terms of
order dated 28.08.2024 as passed by one of the learned
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in this matter this
petitioner was given interim protection and same was
referred to mediation center of the High Court where the
dispute finally could not redressed.
6. Taking note of aforesaid submission, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner as dispute
is civil in nature and there is no absolute bar,prayer of
anticipatory bail even after initiation of Section 82 of
Cr.P.C., is maintainable in interest of justice. In support
of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Asha Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and
by taking note of fact as dispute between the parties
primarily civil in nature arising out of land dispute,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51059 of 2024(4) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
accordingly petitioner above-named, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period
of four weeks, is directed to be released on bail,
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned ACJM VIII, Gaya
/concerned Court, where the case is pending in
connection with Gaya Complaint Case No. 749 of 2018 ,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…