Patna High Court

Prakash Kumar PathakversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PARTHA SARTHY

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted as the allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420, 120B and 34 warranted the petitioner’s continued custody.

Summary

The petitioner, Prakash Kumar Pathak, applied for regular bail in a complaint case registered under IPC sections 420, 120B and 34, alleging that he was falsely implicated in a cheating scheme involving a fake lucky draw. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner received money from the complainant under the pretext of forwarding a prize, constituting cheating and conspiracy. The petitioner claimed he was misled by a co‑accused, had no criminal antecedent, and had been in custody since 17 July 2025. The State and the second opposite party opposed bail, contending that the petitioner had not returned the deposited amount. After hearing both sides, the court found the allegations serious enough to deny bail and rejected the petitioner's application.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC.
Whether the nature of the alleged cheating and conspiracy justifies continued custody.
Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of prior record warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 420

Subjects

bail
cheating
criminal conspiracy
false implication
IPC
regular bail
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76171 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2020 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Prakash Kumar Pathak S/o Bhogendra Pathak R/o Village - Sibipatti, P.S -
                 Rajnagar, District - Madhubani

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Suresh Kumar S/o Bhuvneshwar Mandal R/o Village - Pathra Dakshin, Ward
                 No. 10, P.S - Pipra, District - Supaul

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Ms. Kumari Pallavi, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 For the OP no.2         :       Mr. Gopal Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   11-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Complaint Case no. 233

                   of 2020 registered under sections 420, 120B and 34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant states

                   that he received a phone call from one Swaroop Kumar and

                   Abhishek Kumar Tiwari informing him that in a lucky draw

                   scheme he had won an amount of Rs.6,60,272/- and a Hero

                   motorcycle and for obtaining the award, he had to deposit a

                   certain amount of money in the account of this petitioner. The

                   complainant further states that as informed, he deposited a sum
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76171 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     of Rs. 1,01,600/- in the account of this petitioner.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He was mislead as

                     co-accused Abhishek Kumar Tiwari had taken a loan from him and

                     had informed him that he would be repaying the amount through the

                     account of a friend of his and therefore the petitioner did not suspect

                     when the amounts were being deposited in his account. The

                     petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He

                     is in custody since 17.7.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

                     Cognizance has been taken in the case.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

                     Learned counsel for the complainant submits that even after

                     registration of this case, the petitioner has still not returned the

                     amount.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in

                     the FIR, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and

                     the application is rejected.



                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…