Patna High Court
RAM NANDAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court upheld the anticipatory bail order and dismissed the petition to cancel it.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Nandan Singh, sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Satya Prakash (opposite party no.2) in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case involving Rs.29 lakh. The petitioner argued that the bail order treated the dispute as civil and that the accused had misappropriated funds meant for land registration. The High Court examined the FIR, the bail order, and the material collected, noting that the dispute primarily involved a financial transaction and that civil remedies were available for recovery. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that bail proceedings should not be used as a tool for money recovery, the Court found no infirmity in the lower court's reasoning. Consequently, the application to cancel anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the bail order was upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail granted to the accused should be cancelled on the ground that the case is essentially civil in nature.
- Whether the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust constitute a clear criminal case justifying denial of bail.
- Whether bail proceedings can be employed as a mechanism for recovery of monetary dues.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- civil remedy
- bail cancellation
- money recovery
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58342 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2021 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Ram Nandan Singh S/O Late Murarinandan Sharma R/O Village And P.O-
Sonout, P.S-Mufassil, District-Gaya (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Satya Prakash @ Bittu R/O Village-Chitawan, P.S-Kutumba, District-Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Vardaan Mangalam, Advocate
: Mrs. Ritika Rani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for
cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by order
dated 25.03.2021 passed by the Court of learned District and
Sessions Judge, Gaya in A.B.P. No. 889 of 2021.
3. Short facts of the case relates to the fact that the
opposite party no.2 has committed offence of cheating and
criminal breach of trust by not returning the amount to the tune
of Rs.29 lakhs and odd taken by him for the purposes of
registering a plot of land in favour of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58342 of 2021(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
that the order granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party
no.2 has considered the present case to be one of civil nature
and has considered that there can be some future chances of
settlement of dispute and the money can be recovered from civil
proceeding, however, the present case relates to offence of
cheating having been committed as the opposite party no.2 after
having taken a huge amount for the purposes of registration of
land in favour of the informant has gone back on his words and
has thus committed criminal breach of trust also.
5. This Court has gone though the contents of the
First Information Report as also the order granting anticipatory
bail to the opposite party no.2 and upon perusal of the same, this
Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge, Gaya has passed a
well reasoned order considering the entire aspects of the case
and also considering the materials that have been collected
during the course of investigation. It has also been considered
that the dispute involves financial transaction between the
parties and the petitioner would always have the alternative
remedies to recover the alleged amount. It has also been
considered that the opposite party no.2 is not even the owner of
the concerned plot of land and the said land stands in the name
of different person and no case under Section 138 of Negotiable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58342 of 2021(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
Instrument Act has been filed for dishonour of cheque relating to
Rs.1,00,000/- given by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioner.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has also laid down law in this regard that the
criminal cases or bail proceedings must not be used as a tool for
recovery of money, as held in the case of Bimla Tiwary vs. State
of Bihar, reported in (2023) 11 SCC 607, and not honoring of
agreement would also not strictly fall within the ambit of a
criminal proceeding unless and until a clear case of cheating right
from the inception is made out.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find
any infirmity with the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by learned
District and Sessions Judge, Gaya whereby anticipatory bail has
been granted to the opposite party no.2, as such, the present
application stands dismissed.
8. Needless to say, the petitioner would always have
the liberty to take recourse to other alternative remedies for
recovering of his amount. However, the learned Court concerned is
directed to proceed in the matter expeditiously.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…