Patna High Court
Deepak SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted as the case was not a fit one for such relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Singh, applied for anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution alleged that Singh had taken Rs. 9 lakh in installments for an LIC policy, failed to provide a receipt, and later issued cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. The petitioner feared arrest and sought relief under Section 438 of the CrPC. The court examined the facts and concluded that the nature of the allegations did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed and the trial was directed to be concluded within six months, with a report to be filed thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in view of the allegations under IPC Section 406 and NI Act Section 138
- Whether the facts constitute a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheque bounce
- IPC 406
- NI Act 138
- high court
- bail jurisprudence
- trial timeline
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58476 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DANAPUR
District- Patna
======================================================
Deepak Singh S/O Late Krishna Bhagwan Singh R/O Village/ Mohalla - R.K.
Puram near Gorakhnath Billa Apartment, P.S. - Danapur, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lalan Keshari S/O Late Rajendra Prasad Keshari R/O Ganja Road Sadar
Bazar, P.S- Danapur, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
For the O.P. : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 27-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 15(C) of 2024 instituted under
Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the
N.I. Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner
took Rs. 9 lakhs in installment in lieu of starting an L.I.C.
policy but even after several months, the petitioner did not give
any receipt for the same. When the petitioner was asked to
return the money he deposited Rs. 2,79,834/- in the joint
account of the complainant and his wife and for the remaining
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58476 of 2025(4) dt.27-02-2026
2/2
amount furnished six cheques of one lakh each all of which
bounced due to insufficient fund.
4. Considering the aforesaid fact, it is not a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
6. The Court below is directed to conclude the trial
within six months from today and file a report.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…