Patna High Court
Prwin Kumar Singh @ Praveen Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Since the dispute appears to be civil in nature and the allegations are prima facie false, the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Prwin Kumar Singh and Chao Shen, were named in an FIR for alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC, accused of cheating an informant by forging a stamp‑paper agreement for the supply of mobile handsets. They contended that they had supplied handsets for five years under a genuine agreement and that the informant now owed them Rs 78,64,078.95, alleging that the criminal case was filed merely to obstruct recovery of this amount and that the matter was essentially a civil dispute. The State opposed the bail application. The Court examined the factual matrix, noted the long‑standing commercial relationship and the civil nature of the dispute, and held that the allegations were prima facie false. Accordingly, it granted bail to both petitioners on a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, invoking Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute a criminal offence or a civil dispute.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite being named in the FIR for offences under the IPC.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the CrPC can be invoked to release the petitioners on bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- forgery
- civil dispute
- IPC
- CrPC
- section 420
- section 467
- section 468
- section 471
- section 120B
- section 34
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72176 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-595 Year-2022 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Prwin Kumar Singh @ Praveen Kumar Singh Son of Nand Kishor Prasad
Singh Resident of Village - Kakwara, P.S. - Banka, District - Banka
2. Chao Shen @ Shen Chao Son of Shen Jinqi Managing Director of Morefun
Communication Pvt. Ltd., at present address Morefun Communication
Private Ltd., 4th Foor, Nutan Plaza Bandar Bagicha, Dak Banglow Road,
P.S. - Kotwali, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 04-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending their arrest in connection with Supaul P.S.
Case No. 595 of 2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34
of IPC.
3. The allegation against petitioners is to cheat
informant by entering into an agreement with forge
stamp paper where agreement was made for supplying
mobile handset.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72176 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are
supplier of the handset in terms of agreement and he
supplied handset to the informant for long 5 years in
furtherance of same agreement which now disputed by
informant. It is submitted that when after supplying of
handset, total amount of Rs. 78,64,078.95 becomes due
against informant, with imaginary allegation the present
false case was lodged to stop petitioner to proceed with
the recovery of the dues as aforesaid from the informant.
5. Arguing further, it is submitted that moreover
the allegation raised suggest civil dispute between the
parties, where disputed agreement was acted upon for
long 5 years by informant.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by
taking note of fact as the agreement which said to be
disputed was acted upon by informant for long 5 years
where the present allegation prima-facie raised only when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72176 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
the demand of Rs. 78,64,078.95 as mentioned aforesaid
was raised by petitioner for supplying handset to the
informant, coupled with the fact that dispute primarily
appears civil in nature, accordingly both above-named
petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of four weeks, are
directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
CJM, Supaul /concerned Court, where the case is pending
in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 595 of 2022,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…