Patna High Court
Abhinav Kumar Sharma @ Abhinav SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Because the petitioners demonstrated an intention to cheat and refused to return the misappropriated amount, anticipatory bail could not be granted.
Summary
The petitioners, directors of a real‑estate firm, applied for anticipatory bail in a complaint alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, intimidation and criminal intimidation under IPC sections 341, 406, 504 and 506. The complainant claimed he had paid Rs 41 lakh (loan from SBI) for a flat that was not delivered, and that the amount was misappropriated by the petitioners. The petitioners argued they had a clean record and that the agreement was cancelled, but admitted the money was credited to the company’s account and refused to return it. The court noted the petitioners’ repeated filings, failure to appear, and explicit refusal to refund the amount as evidence of an intention to cheat. Consequently, the court declined to extend anticipatory bail, finding the petitioners’ conduct disqualified them from the privilege. The petition for anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners given the alleged cheating and misappropriation of funds.
- Whether the petitioners’ refusal to return the amount and their prior litigation conduct demonstrate an intention to cheat, justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 341, 406, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- cheating
- misappropriation
- IPC sections 341 406 504 506
- wilful litigant
- real estate dispute
- loan repayment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70999 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7704 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
1. Abhinav Kumar Sharma @ Abhinav Sharma S/o Subhash Kumar Sharma
Director The Land to Home Infra Developers Pvt Ltd, Office situated at Flat
No 402, Ratna Shree Apartment, Kidwaipuri, PS- Kotwali Town, and
District- Patna 800001
2. Rituraj S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Ex-Director, The Land to Home Infra
Developers Pvt Ltd, Office situated at Flat No 402, Ratna Shree Apartment,
Kidwaipuri, PS- Kotwali Town, and District- Patna 800001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumar Anand S/o Shri Dilip Kumar R/o vill - Painal, P.S.- Bihta, Distt.-
Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest
in Complaint Case No.7704(C) of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he along with his wife had booked a flat in the Year
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70999 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
2/5
2018 and the petitioners being Director of the Company had
assured that the flat would be completed by May, 2021, as such,
the petitioners had paid an amount of Rs.39 Lacs, but the flat was
not completed in time, thus complainant cancelled his agreement
on 14.05.2022 and the company gave assurance letter dated
10.10.2022 that complainant would get Rs.60 Lacs i.e. current
market value of the flat, but then, the complainant neither got the
flat nor his money was returned, hence the amount credited by the
complainant in the account of the company was misappropriated
by the accused persons including the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
complainant. It is next submitted that no doubt, complainant had
entered into an agreement with the petitioners for purchasing a
flat, but since the flat was not completed in time, hence registered
agreement was cancelled and the company returned an amount of
Rs.5 Lacs to the complainant.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application
of the petitioners. It is next submitted that complainant is an
employee of the SBI and had taken a loan of Rs.41 Lacs from the
bank and after taking the loan, the said amount was credited in the
company’s account of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70999 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
3/5
6. At this stage, a query was made from the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by the Court that as
to whether the amount of Rs.41 Lacs was credited in the account
of the company or not, on which the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners fairly submits that the amount was
credited in the account of the company. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant next submits that
petitioners are willy litigant and have not returned the amount
which was credited in the account of the company. It is next
submitted that since complainant had taken loan from the bank and
had credited the amount in the account of the company despite flat
not being given to him, the complainant till date is depositing the
EMI of the loaned amount. It is further submitted that petitioners
had earlier moved before the learned District Judge by filing ABP
No.3123 of 2024 and from perusal of the order dated 27.07.2024
in ABP No.3123 of 2024, it would manifest that before the Court,
the petitioners had accepted that they will return the amount based
on their undertaking no coercive action was granted by the learned
District Court. It is further submitted that thereafter the case was
taken up on 30.10.2024, when no coercive action granted to the
petitioners was vacated by the learned District Court as petitioners
were not appearing in the case, thereafter on 16.11.2024, the
petitioners withdrew their ABP No.3123 of 2024. It is submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70999 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
4/5
that no liberty was granted to the petitioners to file second
anticipatory bail application as would manifest from the order
dated 16.11.2024 in ABP No.3123 of 2024. It is further submitted
that petitioners thereafter filed ABP No.4896 of 2024 and again by
an order dated 25.11.2024, interim protection was granted till next
date, thereafter the case was taken up on 20.02.2025, when
petitioners were directed to appear on the next date i.e.
27.02.2025, since petitioners in between 25.11.2024 to 20.02.2025
were not appearing in the case, thereafter ABP No.4896 of 2024
was taken up on 27.02.2025 and the same came to be rejected. It is
further submitted that on one hand the petitioners were
approaching the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail on
false undertaking that they are willing to return the amount and on
the other hand, had filed Cr. Revision No.685 of 2024 against the
order dated 06.12.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.7704 of
2023 filed by the complainant in which cognizance was taken, but
then, Cr. Revision No.685 of 2024 came to be rejected by an order
dated 04.09.2025.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant thus submits that this demonstrates the conduct of the
petitioners that how willy litigant they are.
8. The Court after hearing the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant asked the learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70999 of 2025(4) dt.16-04-2026
5/5
appearing on behalf of the petitioners whether petitioners are
willing to return the amount which was credited in the account of
the company by the complainant or not on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners flatly submitted that
petitioners will not return the amount.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and also taking
into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that petitioners will not return the amount credited
in the account of the company, prima facie demonstrates that
petitioners right from the inception had an intention to cheat,
hence the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
10. The prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory
bail stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…