Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ram Mohan Kumar @ Mohan KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the petition was dismissed.

Summary

Ram Mohan Kumar sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, relating to alleged misappropriation of funds under the Bihar State Crop Assistant Scheme. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner obtained a fingerprint from a beneficiary, Rekha Devi, and siphoned Rs. 2,400 out of Rs. 5,000 credited to her account. The petitioner contended that all amounts were transferred to the intended beneficiary’s account and he had no money in his own account, offering affidavits to support his claim. The State relied on a police report (Memo No. 860 dated 21.07.2025) confirming the allegation of theft. The Court examined the material on record, found the allegations credible, and held that no sufficient ground existed to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the alleged theft.
  • Whether the police report and the affidavit evidence are sufficient to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • fraud
  • fingerprint
  • Bihar State Crop Assistant Scheme
  • sections 316
  • section 318
  • High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68211 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2025 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar
                 ======================================================
                 Ram Mohan Kumar @ Mohan Kumar S/o- Bijali Prasad R/v - Gaushpur, P.s.
                 Tariyani, District - Sheohar

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mrs. Kumari Sujata Sinha, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   11-02-2026                    Heard Mrs. Kumari Sujata Sinha, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Tariyani P.S. Case No. 131/2025 for the offence registered

                   under sections 316(2), 318(4) of the BNS.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that accused persons have forcibly taken away the money from

                   the amount that was allotted under Bihar State Crop Assistant

                   Scheme. In that background, the District Magistrate, Sheohar

                   made direction for lodging of the FIR against whom the

                   allegations cropped up, petitioner included. This led to the FIR.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all

                   the amounts have gone to the beneficiary’s account, nothing in

                   the account of the petitioner and some of them are ready to put
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68211 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     it on affidavit. Earlier, the Co-ordinate Bench had directed the

                     State Counsel to file affidavit and the same has come through

                     the District Co-operative Officer-cum-Assistant Registrar,

                     Sheohar.

                                  5. Learned APP, Mr. Bharat Bhushan has taken this

                     Court to the S.P. Sheohar report vide Memo no. 860 dated

                     21.07.2025 (Annexure-C series) to show that at least one

                     amongst number of aggrieved persons (Rekha Devi) alleged that

                     the petitioner came to her house and took her fingerprint, as a

                     result whereof, out of Rs. 5,000/- which came in her account,

                     Rs. 2,400/- was deducted.

                                  6. Allegation is there, the S.P., Sheohar has got it

                     supervised and had confirmed the case to be true, the petitioner

                     as alleged has looted the innocent people and from a meagre

                     amount of Rs. 5,000/-, has siphoned off Rs. 2,400/0. He has

                     criminal antecedent too, in that background, no case of

                     anticipatory bail is made out.

                                  7. Cr. Misc. No. 68211 of 2025 stands rejected.



                                                    (Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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