Patna High Court
Pawan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the dispute is essentially civil and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Pawan Kumar was charged under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and NI Act section 138 for issuing four cheques that allegedly bounced for Rs.10,00,000 after receiving an advance of Rs.13,00,000 in a contract for HDPE pipes. The petitioner claimed the matter was a civil dispute arising from a commercial contract and that the cheques were taken as security and later misused. The court examined the allegations and, relying on precedents that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offences, held that the case was essentially civil in nature. Consequently, the court directed the district court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, subject to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The application for pre‑arrest bail was disposed of with the order to release the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations of cheque bounce and alleged fraud constitute offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and NI Act section 138 or are merely a civil contractual dispute.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the nature of the dispute.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil dispute
- cheque bounce
- IPC 419
- IPC 420
- IPC 467
- IPC 468
- NI Act 138
- abuse of process
- criminal vs civil
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6008 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- BITHAN District- Samastipur
======================================================
Pawan Kumar S/o Late Narayan Kushwaha @ Ram Narayan Kushwaha R/o
Muhalla-Lalkothi Tatarpur, P.S.-Tatarpur, District-Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Yadav, Male, aged about 46 years, son of Sri Baleshwar Yadav,
resident of Sohama, P.S.- Bithan, District-Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhav Krishna, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 07-05-2026 Heard Mr. Madhav Krishna, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar
Pandey, learned APP for the State, as well as, Mr. Prabhat
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Bithan P. S. Case No. 12 of 2024 under sections 419, 420,
467, 468, I.P.C. and 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant alleged to have advanced Rs.13,00,000/- to petitioner,
Pawan Kumar, who later issued four cheques amounting to
Rs.10,00,000/- which, upon presentation, were dishonored due
to insufficient funds, and despite demand, the amount was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6008 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
2/4
repaid.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further
submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of
contractual dealings relating to supply of HDPE pipes and
fittings and the informant had taken blank signed cheques from
the petitioner as security at the time of contract, which have
subsequently been misused. The alleged agreement is a
manufactured document and no offence under Sections 419,
420, 467 or 468 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. On
these grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest
bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Informant and learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR and upon consideration of the materials available on
record, it appears that the dispute between the parties have
arisen out of business and contractual transactions relating to
supply of materials and issuance of cheques. It further appears
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6008 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
3/4
that earlier mediation between the parties has already failed. The
allegations primarily relate to non-payment arising out of
alleged commercial dealings. The dispute prima facie appears to
be civil in nature.
7. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the
observation made by the Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra vs.
State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, wherein
it has been held that though a civil dispute may have a criminal
texture, the Court must examine whether a dispute essentially
civil in nature has been given a cloak of criminal offence and in
such circumstances criminal proceedings should not be
permitted to continue so as to prevent abuse of the process of
the Court.
8. The aforesaid proposition has also been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.
vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1575.
9. This Court further finds that the Apex Court in case
of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in
Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024 has reiterated that in order to
constitute offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., the
essential ingredients including dishonest intention from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6008 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
4/4
inception and clear entrustment must be prima facie made out.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
and law laid down by the Apex Court as referred herein above,
the nature of allegations and the fact that the dispute
substantially appears to be civil in nature, I find that the parties
may avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court.
11. The learned District Court is directed to release
the petitioner on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Bithan P. S. Case No. 12 of 2024, subject to
the condition as laid down under Section 482 of the
BNSS//438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and on such terms and conditions
as the learned District Court deems fit and proper.
12. The present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.