Patna High Court
Chandan kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner’s clean antecedent justified granting bail, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Kumar, was in judicial custody for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the IPC relating to a conspiracy to defraud a complainant of Rs. 3,01,000. The prosecution alleged that he, together with co‑accused, sold disputed land and retained the proceeds, while the defence claimed the petitioner has a clean antecedent, the FIR is fabricated, and the amount was returned to the complainant. The petitioner also highlighted that his father, a co‑accused, had been granted anticipatory bail. The court examined the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner’s personal history and the material before it. Considering the petitioner’s clean record and the circumstances, the court ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation with the trial, non‑tampering of evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented by the JMFC, Saharsa.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and alleged return of the money outweigh the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the conditions imposed by the court are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- criminal conspiracy
- Indian Penal Code
- anticipatory bail
- clean antecedent
- criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6701 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1068 Year-2022 Thana- SAHARSA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Saharsa
======================================================
Chandan kumar S/O Sibu Sah R/O Village-Simraha, Ward no. 35, P.S. and
District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Raja Ram Yadav S/O Late Siyalal Yadav R/O Village- Amha Tola Saprdaha,
Ward No.-8, P.S and Distt.- Supaul.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Madhukar Mohan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Madhukar Mohan, learned counsel for the
informant/complainant and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
25.11.2025 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1068(C) of
2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and
120(B) of IPC.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner
in conspiracy with others have defalcated a huge sum of money
i.e. about Rs. 3,01,000/- with the help of other accused persons
by selling the land in dispute on which already a title suit is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6701 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/4
pending in the court on that disputed land. As per allegation,
petitioner along with other co-accused persons under a planned
conspiracy cheated the complainant and tried to sell the disputed
land for Rs. 14, 85,000/- and took Rs, 3,01,000/- in which Rs.
2,50,000/- cash and Rs. 51, 000/- through cheque, he then asked
the petitioners to return the money but they refused to return the
money to the complainant. There are ample materials against the
petitioners in the case dairy. Petitioner is in judicial custody
since 29/11/2025. As per complaint petition and materials facts
adduced by the prosecution, the allegations leveled against the
petitioner is highly serious in nature and crime is against the
civic society.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that, in fact, the
petitioner has returned the amount in question to the
complainant and complainant after some time with ulterior
motive has filed the present complaint case against the
petitioner and the co-accused persons. The co-accused person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6701 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/4
person, namely Shibu Sah, who is happened to be the father of
the petitioner, who has entered the agreement with the
complainant has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated
26.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13116 of 2026. It is also
submitted that, in fact, the complainant has given the amount
aforesaid to the father of the petitioner and the petitioner has
made an accused on the ground that he is son of the co-accused
person and he has signed the agreement as witness.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent, let
the petitioner, above named, 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 the learned Court of
JMFC, Saharsa in connection with Complaint Case No.
1068(C) of 2022, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6701 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
4/4
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…