Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Sunil JaiswalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was granted as the allegations could be examined in trial and custodial interrogation was not required.

Summary

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Jaiswal, entered into a partnership to run a rice mill on land owned by the complainant’s wife and invested Rs.6,00,000. The partnership failed to deliver rice to the Bihar State Food Corporation, leading to a liability of Rs.34,80,420. The complainant alleges that the petitioner forged a partnership dissolution deed to evade payment, invoking IPC sections 420, 465, 467 and 468. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending that the forgery allegation is unproven and can be examined in a full trial. The court noted that the allegations rest on documents that can be tested during trial and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with conditions under CrPC section 438(2).

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of forgery under IPC sections 420, 465, 467 and 468.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • forgery
  • partnership dispute
  • rice mill
  • IPC 420
  • IPC 465
  • IPC 467
  • IPC 468
  • CrPC 438
  • bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64748 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-888 Year-2016 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                         Purnia
                 ======================================================
                 Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Sunil Jaiswal S/o Late Ram Nath Jaiswal R/o
                 Mohalla- Chandan Nagar, Bageshwari Astha, Gulabbagh, P.S.- Sadar,
                 District- Purnea, At present R/o Line Bazar (Near the Resident of Dr. Raj
                 Kumar Eye Specialist), P.S.- K.Hat, District- Purnea, Bihar

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus

           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Paras Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Janki Prasad Jaiswal Resident of Chandan
                 Nagar, Bageshwari Asthan, Gulab Bagh, P.S.- Sadar, District- Purnea

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar
                 For the State          :       Mr.Anish Chandra
                 For the O. P. No. 2    :       Mr. Bhola Prasad
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

                                                ORAL ORDER

4   24-02-2026         1.   Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel

                            for the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 and learned

                            Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                       2.   This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out

                            of Complaint Case No. 888 of 2016, in which the learned

                            District Court has taken cognizance for the offences

                            punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468 of the Indian

                            Penal Code.

                       3.   The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition, is that

                            the complainant and the petitioner entered into an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64748 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
                                            2/4




                   agreement for running a rice mill in the land owned by

                   the wife of the complainant. The petitioner invested a sum

                   of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the establishment and running of the

                   rice mill. The partners failed to deliver the agreed

                   quantity of rice to the Bihar State Food Corporation, due

                   to which a sum of Rs. 34,80,420/- fallen due upon the

                   petitioner and the complainant to be paid to the Bihar

                   State Food Corporation. It has further been alleged that to

                   evade payment, the petitioner fabricated and a fake

                   partnership dissolution deed, dated 03.04.2013 was

                   prepared falsely claiming that their partnership ended

                   before the defalcation. The forged document carried the

                   fake signature of the complainant and his wife and was

                   produced before the Court to mislead.

              4.   Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner

                   alleged and the allegation that the petitioner has forged

                   and fabricated the dissolution deed is not correct and can

                   be decided in a full-fledged trial. He further submits that

                   in the dissolution deed, notary seal is also there.

              5.   On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant-

                   Opposite Party No. 2 vehemently opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64748 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
                                            3/4




                   anticipatory bail and submits that for recovery of a sum of

                   Rs. 34,80,420/- the Bihar State Food Corporation has

                   lodged Certificate Case No. 678 of 2024 against both the

                   partners and the petitioner, in order to evade payment of

                   his share to the Bihar State Food Corporation, has

                   prepared a forged and fabricated dissolution deed.

              6.   Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf

                   of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that

                   the allegation against the petitioner is based upon

                   documents, which can be tested in the trial, and custodial

                   interrogation of the petitioner may not be required, I am

                   inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory

                   bail.

              7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

              8.   Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest

                   or surrender before the Court below within a period of

                   four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing

                   bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties

                   of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub

                   Divisional Judicial Magistrate Purnea, in connection with

                   Complaint Case No. 888 of 2016, subject to the condition

                   laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64748 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
                                                        4/4




                              Procedure.



                                                                           (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-

U √     T   √


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.