Bibekanand SinhaversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68851 of 2024
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-165 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
                                                          Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Bibekanand Sinha S/o- Late Yugal Kishore Singh Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar
                 Road No.14A, PS- Rajiv Nagar Twon and Dist- Patna
           2.    Smt. Sunita Singh @ Sunita Kumari wife of Bibekanand Sinha Mohalla-
                 Rajiv Nagar Road No.14A, PS- Rajiv Nagar Twon and Dist- Patna
           3.    Saurabh Kumar Son of Bibekanand Sinha Mohalla- Rajiv Nagar Road
                 No.14A, PS- Rajiv Nagar Twon and Dist- Patna

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Kumar Sanjeev Son of Shivji Prasad Sharma R/o- Kankarbagh Main Road,

                 Old Bypass Ps- Kankarbagh Town Dist- Patna

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :

                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate.

                 For the State           :       Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP.

                 For O.P. No.2           :       None.

                 ======================================================

                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

                                                 ORAL ORDER



6   24-06-2026                      Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP for the State.

                                  2. No one appears on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

                                  3. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Complaint Case No. 165(C) of 2020 registered for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68851 of 2024(6) dt.24-06-2026
                                            2/4




          offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the

          Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act only against

          petitioner no.1.

                       4. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused

          persons agreed to sell their house situated at Rajeev Nagar,

          Patna, to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 80,00,000/-.

          In    pursuance       thereof,     the    complainant   allegedly   paid

          Rs.40,00,000/- to the accused persons in different installments.

          Subsequently, the accused persons refused to execute the sale

          deed and assured the complainant that the advance amount

          would be refunded. For such repayment, they executed a bond

          dated 20.09.2018 and issued three cheques, which were not

          encashed and ultimately expired. Thereafter, fresh cheques were

          allegedly issued by the accused persons towards repayment of

          the said amount. However, when presented for encashment, the

          cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and

          other reasons. It is alleged that the accused persons, having

          received Rs. 40,00,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of

          selling the house, dishonestly retained the amount and thereby

          cheated the complainant.

                       5. It appears from the very beginning that the

          petitioners fraudulently received a sum of Rs. 40,00,000 (rupees
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68851 of 2024(6) dt.24-06-2026
                                            3/4




          forty lacs) through different modes. Petitioner submits that he

          has returned an amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- to the O.P. No.2. In

          support of this, he refers to the communication made at Page

          Nos. 32, 33 and 34 of the bail application. I find that in respect

          of communication made at Page Nos. 32, 33 and 34, no

          statement has been made in that regard in the bail application.

          On perusal of the xerox copy of the certain communication, it is

          also not apparent that said communication has been made by the

          petitioner to the O.P. No.2.

                       6. Considering the nature of allegation, the matter was

          referred vide order dated 11.02.2026 for settlement of dispute by

          way of mediation. Learned Mediator has reported that the

          mediation failed as the petitioners are not interested to settle the

          dispute through the process of mediation. The complaint reveals

          that the petitioners had issued three cheques to the O.P. No.2,

          but all the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund.

                       7. In view of the above conduct of the petitioners, I

          find that from very beginning the petitioners wanted to deceive

          the O.P. No.2 and at the same time parties have not availed

          appropriate remedy before the competent civil court for

          realization of the amount by the respective parties.

                       8. In such circumstances, I find that better course
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68851 of 2024(6) dt.24-06-2026
                                                       4/4




                     would be to allow the parties to avail appropriate remedy in

                     accordance with law.

                                  9. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed

                     being devoid of any merit.



                                                         (Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-

U      T