Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the accusations were specific and direct and the petitioner had prior criminal antecedents.

Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after a complaint was lodged alleging that he borrowed Rs. 5,00,000 from the complainant, issued a cheque for Rs. 4,30,000 which subsequently bounced, and faced charges under several IPC sections and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was directly implicated and had prior criminal antecedents. The petitioner argued innocence and claimed false implication. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific nature of the accusations and the petitioner’s antecedents. The Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the direct accusation, and the petitioner’s history, and concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the specific accusations under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 420, 406, 506 and NI Act Section 138.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506
Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 438 CrPC
cheque bounce
Negotiable Instruments Act
Indian Penal Code
criminal antecedents
complaint case

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71999 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-478 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar Son of Ashok Singh R/o Village - Ward no.06, Dharmraychak,
                 P.S.- Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Ravi Shankar Singh Son of Late Sahdev Singh R/o Chauki Ahshok Dham,
                 Ward no. 1, P.S. - Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   27-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint

                   case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341,

                   323, 504, 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this

                   petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the

                   complainant for the purpose of solemnizing marriage of his

                   sister with an assurance to return the same within 2-3 months.

                   After three months, when the complainant demanded his money,

                   this petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 4,30,000/- on 27.10.2016,
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71999 of 2025(5) dt.27-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       however, the same bounced due to insufficiency of funds.

                                    4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                       behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                       committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in

                       this case with ulterior motive.

                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                       the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the

                       complaint petition with specific accusation that he borrowed a

                       sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant and when he asked

                       to return the same, this petitioner issued a cheque which got

                       bounced. Petitioner has got two criminal antecedents.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation and criminal

                       antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                       bail to the petitioner is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…