Patna High Court
Vijay SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The High Court denied bail, holding that the nature of the offences and the accused's antecedents warranted continued detention.
Summary
Vijay Sah, a director of an unauthorised Nidhi company, was charged under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged misappropriation of approximately Rs. 2 crore. He applied for regular bail before the Patna High Court, having been in custody since 7 November 2023 and possessing two prior criminal antecedents. The court noted that his earlier bail plea had been rejected and that the Supreme Court had dismissed his special leave petition (SLP (Crl) No.8579 of 2024). All witnesses in the trial have been examined and the final arguments are pending. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the existence of prior convictions, and the ongoing trial, the court declined to grant bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the remaining proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with criminal breach of trust, cheating, conspiracy and common intention involving large financial misappropriation.
- Whether the accused's prior criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the alleged offences preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- conspiracy
- Nidhi company
- misappropriation
- Indian Penal Code
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64165 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1867 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Samastipur
======================================================
Vijay Sah S/o Rajendra Sah R/o Village_ Badi Maliya, P.S.- Gogari, DIstt.-
Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Arvind Kumar Pankaj S/o- Late Jageshwar Chaurasiya Asst. Branch
Manager, Sarvoday Proficient Fund Ltd. Ravi Ranjan Market Arya Samaj
Road Old Post office Road Samastipur W.No- Ps Dist- Samastipur, R/o-
West Girls High School Kushipur Samastipur Ps Dist- Samastipur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks bail in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 179 of 2019 (Complaint Case No. 1867 of 2021)
registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 04.04.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 22927 of 2024 by this
Court, which reads as follows:-
Heard learned cousnel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64165 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/2
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Muffasil P.S.Case No. 179 of 2019 (Complaint
case No. 1867 of 2021) registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The petitioner is a member of Board
of Directors of Nidhi Company and the company
was collecting money, though, the Nidhi Company
was not authorized by the Central Government. The
Company of which the petition is a member of
Board and he is accused of misappropriating about
Rs. 2 corers which may increase, if the case is
investigated properly.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is in custody since
07.11.2023. The petitioner has two criminal
antecedents.
5. In view of the aforesaid fact, This
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer of bail of the petitioner is
rejected herewith.
6. The trial Court is directed to expedite
the trial of all the cases in one court pending against
the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl) No(s). 8579 of 2024 which was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.07.2024.
5. In the trial, all the witnesses have been examined
and the final argument is to begin on the next date of hearing.
6. In view of the above, this application for regular
bail stands rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…