Patna High Court
Vinod AgarwalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Agarwal, sought bail after an arrest warrant was issued in connection with Complaint No.1654 of 2024 alleging offences under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS. The complaint arose from a commercial dispute over a Rs.72 lakh contract for labour supply, where the petitioner had paid Rs.43 lakh and Rs.29 lakh remained unpaid. The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed maliciously and after an inordinate delay, noting that the work was completed in March 2019 and the complaint was lodged only in August 2024, with a prior wage case already dismissed. The State and the informant contended that a prima facie case existed and that the unpaid amount indicated culpability. The court observed that the matter was essentially a commercial dispute, the delay was unreasonable, and the petitioner had a clean antecedent, and therefore granted bail on a bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for alleged offences under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS.
- Whether the complaint is a genuine criminal matter or a civil/commercial dispute filed maliciously.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- commercial dispute
- malafide complaint
- Section 316
- Section 318
- Section 482(2)
- pre‑trial detention
- civil‑criminal overlap
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70906 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1654 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria
======================================================
Vinod Agarwal S/o Yograj Agarwal @ Yuvraj Agarwal Prop. M/s eagle
Enterprises, 30 Nirala Market, IT Crossing Lucknow and Distt- Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shree Umar S/o Tasleem R/o vill - Taran Tola Kamat Dooba, ward no. 10,
P.S.- Jokihat, Distt.- Araria
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, Adv.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. S.M. Ashraf, Sr. Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. O.P. No.2 is
represented through Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned Senior Advocate.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No.1654 of 2024, wherein cognizance has
been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 316 and
318 of the BNS.
3. The complainant who is said to be a petty
contractor operating in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan, and
Haryana, entered into an agreement with Opposite Party No. 2
for the purpose of supplying labour after receiving a certain
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70906 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
advance amount and other incidental payments. It is specifically
alleged that the work commenced on 10.08.2018 and was
completed on 24.03.2019. The total amount payable for the said
work was calculated at Rs.72 lakhs, out of which the petitioner
has paid Rs.43 lakhs and a balance of Rs. 29 lakhs remains
unpaid till date.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted
that only on account of putting pressure, the present complaint
case has been instituted, which is out and out malafide in nature.
Even as per the averments made in the complaint petition, the
alleged work was completed on 24.03.2019, whereas the present
complaint has been filed belatedly on 27.08.2024, without any
cogent or plausible explanation for such inordinate delay. It is
further submitted that prior to filing the present complaint, the
complainant had already instituted Payment of Wages Case No.
2 of 2021 before the Court of the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Purnia. The said case did not find favour and was
dismissed on 12.05.2023. Thereafter, the present complaint case
has been filed. Even if the allegation is taken to be true as
levelled in the complaint case, it predominantly appears to be a
dispute regarding accounting, commercial in nature. Moreover,
the petitioner bears fair antecedent and he undertakes that he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70906 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
will fully cooperate in the proceedings of the Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the informant, as well as the learned Advocate for
the State, vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the order taking cognizance passed by the learned
jurisdictional court clearly indicates that a prima facie case is
made out against the petitioner, pursuant to which summons
have already been issued. It is further contended that materials
available on record demonstrate that the petitioner has failed to
pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 29 lakhs, and therefore, his
complicity in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that the dispute predominantly appears to be
commercial in nature, besides the fact that the work was
completed long back on 24.03.2019 and the present complaint
case came to be filed after a long delay, besides other materials
as discussed hereinabove and the fair antecedent of the
petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court
below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70906 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Complaint Case
No.1654 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further condition that one of
the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the
petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…