Patna High Court
Saikat Sen GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, granting bail to the petitioners subject to conditions, while dismissing the application of petitioner No.5 as withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioners, employees of Masters Development Management (India) Private Ltd, were named in an FIR filed by Tapovardhan Prakritik Chikitsa Kendra alleging breach of a construction contract, overcharging and non‑completion of work. They contended that the dispute was civil, governed by an arbitration clause in the agreement, and that the police had improperly invoked criminal provisions and issued process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, while the State and the informant opposed it. The High Court examined the nature of the allegations, the contractual arbitration mechanism, and the purpose of the process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C., concluding that the criminal proceedings were not appropriate for a civil breach. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to all petitioners (with one petitioner having withdrawn his application) subject to bail bonds and sureties, and imposed conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Securitisation Act, 2023.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(3) and 161(2) of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the dispute arising from the contract is civil in nature and should be resolved by arbitration as per the agreement.
- Whether the issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code is proper in the present circumstances.
- Effect of the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application by petitioner No.5.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82, 83
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- arbitration
- contract breach
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Sections 82 and 83
- Bihar Negotiable Securitisation Act
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54503 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- BARARI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Saikat Sen Gupta S/O Ajay Sen Gupta Authorised Representative, Masters
Development Management (India) Private Limited. Posted in Regional
Office of Masters Development Management (India) Limited, having its
Office Address at Block-GA-142, 1444, Rajdanga Main Road, P.S- Kasba,
Kolkata- 800107.
2. Goutam Paul S/O Krishna Dhan Paul MEP Engineer, Masters Development
Management (India) Private Limited. Posted in Regional Office of Masters
Development Management (India) Limited, having its Office Address at
Block-GA-142, 1444, Rajdanga Main Road, P.S- Kasba, Kolkata- 800107.
3. Chowdhury Jahirul Islam S/O Ambia Golam Chowdhury Executive HR and
Administration, Masters Development Management (India) Private Limited.
Posted in Regional Office of Masters Development Management (India)
Limited, having its Office Address at Block-GA-142, 1444, Rajdanga Main
Road, P.S- Kasba, Kolkata- 800107.
4. Partha Guha S/O Satyendra Chandra Guha Project Head Masters
Development Management (India), Private Limited. Posted in Regional
Office of Masters Development Management (India) Limited, having its
Office Address at Block-GA-142, 1444, Rajdanga Main Road, P.S- Kasba,
Kolkata- 800107.
5. Dhruba Bhattacharya S/O Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya Regional Manager,
Masters Development Management (India) Private Limited. Posted in
Regional Office of Masters Development Management (India) Limited,
having its Office Address at Block-GA-142, 1444, Rajdanga Main Road,
P.S- Kasba, Kolkata- 800107.
6. Rana Halder S/O Sridam Halder Site In-Charge, Masters Development
Management (India) Private- Limited. Posted in Regional Office of Masters
Development Management (India) Limited, having its Office Address at
Block-GA-142, 1444, Rajdanga Main Road, P.S- Kasba, Kolkata- 800107.
... ... Petitioner/s
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
2/9
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Pratap, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-08-2025 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar.
2. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, at the outset, seeks permission to withdraw the
anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no. 5,
Dhruba Bhattacharya who was arrested on 22.08.2025 from
Calcutta.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner no. 5 only.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
3/9
5. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
316(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(3) and 161(2)
of the BNS, 2023.
6. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that this is the way, the Bihar police acts.
It is submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it would manifest the dispute is civil to which a
criminal colour has been given, but then police is in a hurry, as
such, they obtained process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C,
when there are cases of more serious natures which are pending
since years and no steps are being taken for arresting accused
involved in heinous offences like murder, rape and dacoity.
7. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners next submits that the informant alleges that
Tapovardhan Prakritik Chikitsa Kendra is registered under the
Society Registration Act where people come for Prakritik
Chikitsa, further for expanding the Center, an agreement was
entered in between the Director of the Center (informant) and
Master Development Management Private Limited, a Mumbai
based Project Management Company on 11.11.2021, for
completing the construction of the Center, worth Rs. 36 Crores
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
4/9
within a period of 16 months, further the fee payable to the
management company was Rs. 68,16,000/- which was to be
paid in 16 installments, but the company did not complete the
work within the stipulated 16 months, rather the employees of
the company overstayed for a period of 12 months without
completing the work, further on 03.05.2022, the informant had
complained to the Chairman of the company namely Jaspreet
Singh with regard to the pace of the work and he had assured
that the work would be completed within the stipulated time, but
the same was not done, rather the company saddled the
informant with extra fee, which was objected, but the company
instead of the agreed amount plus GST realised an amount of
Rs. 93,79,000/- in excess, further alleges that the company
realised an amount in excess of Rs. 74,31,807/- despite not
completing the work, hence alleges that the agreement entered
in between the informant and the company was nothing, but an
illusion, as work was not completed within the stipulated time
and money in excess was charged in connivance with the
officials of the informant.
8. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R., it would manifest that in sum and substance, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
5/9
informant alleges that an agreement was entered in between the
informant and the management company for expanding the
Center, for which a time limit along with amount payable was
fixed, it is next submitted that informant is aggrieved by the fact
that the petitioners’ company did not complete the work within
the stipulated time and also charged much in excess by
producing inflated invoices. It is also submitted that petitioners
had approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR by filing
Cr.W.J.C. No. 2551 of 2024 and the same was dismissed with an
observation that the petitioners would be at liberty to file an
application seeking quashing of the FIR after filing of charge
sheet. It is next submitted that against the order passed by this
Court, the petitioners moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
by filing SLP No. 8825 of 2025, which was also disposed of by
an order dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure-P/5). It is next submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the SLP No.
8825 of 2025, recorded that- At this stage, the learned Senior
counsel brings to our notice a few observations in the order
impugned and expresses concern that these observations are
likely to influence the prayer for anticipatory bail/bail in the
ongoing criminal investigation. Having regard to the above
submission, we observe that any observations in the order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
6/9
impugned shall be treated as having been made for the purposes
of disposing the case pending before the High Court and an
application filed by the petitioners shall be considered
independently on its own merits. With the above observations,
the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further
submits that it was in pursuance of an agreement entered in
between the informant and the petitioners that the work
commenced for the Center and in the event if any dispute arose,
the same arose on account of breach of the condition of the
agreement. It is submitted that the agreement itself recorded that
the in the event if any dispute arises in between the parties, the
same shall be settled by referring the dispute to an arbitrator.
10. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners next submits that if the informant was aggrieved
by the fact that petitioners have billed in excess and have taken
an amount excess to what was agreed in the agreement and the
work was not completed, in that event the informant could have
moved before an appropriate forum seeking appointment of an
arbitrator, as the place of arbitration was also at Bhagalpur, but
then instead of resorting to the remedy available in terms of the
agreement, the informant instituted the instant criminal case. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
7/9
is further submitted that the instant criminal case has been
instituted only with a view to coerce the petitioners into
submission so that they part with the fanciful demand of the
informant under fear of arrest. It is also submitted that
petitioners are not shying away from any arbitration proceeding
and also undertake that in the event in the arbitration proceeding
any legitimate dues of the informant is found payable in that
event the petitioners will make the said payment to the
informant. It is also submitted that no doubt process under
Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued, but then the
petitioners had earlier moved before the learned Trial Court
seeking anticipatory bail in which no coercive action was
granted, but then an application came to be filed from the side
of the informant alleging aspersion on the learned Court which
had granted no coercive action, as such, the case was transferred
to another learned Additional Sessions Judge and the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners came to be
rejected. It is submitted that it absolutely does not stand to
reason that as to why the informant filed an application casting
aspersion against the learned Additional Sessions Judge when
no coercive action was granted, it was only for the reason that
informant anyhow intended that the anticipatory bail application
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
8/9
of the petitioners is rejected. It is further submitted that the
purpose of issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to ensure
the presence of the accused before the learned Trial Court and
not for aiding the police in investigation. It is also submitted that
in dispute of present nature, the police promptly obtains process
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C, but then in serious cases the
matters remain pending for years. It is reiterated and submitted
that if the condition of the agreement has been breached by the
petitioners as being alleged by the informant, in that event the
informant instead of resorting to a criminal proceeding ought to
have tried to settle the dispute through arbitration, as
incorporated in the agreement. It is next submitted that
petitioners will not abscond rather will co-operate in the
investigation to prove their innocence.
11. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, but then are not in a
position to rebut the submissions of the learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of the
agreement, the informant had a remedy of settling the dispute by
way of arbitration
12. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54503 of 2025(2) dt.25-08-2025
9/9
Senior counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named,
in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial
court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten 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 Barari
P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
13. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…