Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in view of the commercial nature of the dispute, the delay in filing the FIR, and the filing of the charge‑sheet.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajay Kumar, was arrested in August 2025 in connection with a complaint alleging that he failed to return Rs.5 lakh paid as an advance for a flat and did not deliver the flat. The informant claimed the transaction was fraudulent, leading to an FIR under sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner argued that the dispute was purely commercial, that he had returned part of the amount as shown by bank statements, and that the FIR was lodged after a nine‑year delay, making continued detention unwarranted. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner had not refunded the full amount nor delivered the flat. Considering the commercial nature of the allegation, the lengthy delay in filing the FIR, the petitioner’s custody of about five months, and the fact that a charge‑sheet had already been filed, the court ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged commercial fraud under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the filing of a charge‑sheet affect the entitlement to bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- commercial fraud
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- delay in FIR
- charge sheet
- Muzaffarpur
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73380 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2025 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-
Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ajay Kumar, Son of Tarkeshwar Prasad, Resident of Brahmsthan, Naya Tola,
Technical Chowk, PO- HPO Nayatola P.S. -Nayatola, District- Muzaffarpur,
Pin Code-842001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shyamlendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Madhu Prasun, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Kaji Muhammadpur P.S.
Case no.152 of 2025, registered under section 316(2), 318(4)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that inspite of having paid an advance of Rs.5 lacs for purchase
of a flat constructed in the premises/land belonging to the
petitioner, neither the said amount is being returned nor the flat
is being given. As such the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from the contents of the F.I.R. itself it would transpire that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73380 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
transaction between the parties is purely a commercial
transaction. As against receipt of Rs.5 lacs, the petitioner
returned different amounts on different dates which is
substantiated from the statement of the bank account of the
petitioner brought on record as Annexure-P/2 to the petition. It
is further submitted that the petitioner is also ready to return the
balance amount. There is an inordinate delay of 9 years in
lodging of the F.I.R. and the petitioner is in custody since
20.8.2025. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
Learned counsel for the informant submits that neither the
amount is being returned by the petitioner nor the flat is being
given. As such the case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the
petitioner in the F.I.R., the same revolving around a commercial
transaction relating to sale and purchase of a flat built on the
petitioner’s plot of land together with the petitioner having
remained in custody for about 5 months since 20.8.2025 and
charge-sheet having been submitted in the case, the petitioner is
directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Kaji
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73380 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
Muhammadpur P.S. Case no.152 of 2025, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist (East), Muzaffarpur.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…