Patna High Court
Diwakar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court allowed the bail petition, granting bail subject to conditions.
Summary
Diwakar Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging that a consignment of flour entrusted to a carrier, Zinka Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd., was not delivered, leading to charges under IPC Sections 406 and 420/34. The petitioner contended that he was merely a local contact for the carrier and had no role in the alleged fraud, invoking Section 10 of the Carrier Act which requires a six‑month notice before any proceeding against a carrier. He further argued that the FIR was therefore not maintainable and that his only disclosed criminal antecedent should not preclude bail. The State opposed the bail application. The Patna High Court, after considering the facts and the statutory provisions, granted bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, including cancellation of bail if undisclosed antecedents are discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail for offences under IPC Sections 406 and 420/34.
- Whether the FIR is maintainable in view of the alleged non‑compliance with Section 10 of the Carrier Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Carrier Act
- notice requirement
- prior criminal antecedent
- Indian Penal Code
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76617 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2024 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Diwakar Kumar S/o Late Raj Kishor Choudhary R/o Village - Mangurahi, P.S
- Ganga Bridge, Proprietor - D.K Career, Truck Supplier And Commission
Agent, Leelavati Complex Industrial Area Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 484 of 2024, dated
02.06.2024, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per allegation, the informant had entrusted 30
MT flour worth Rs.8,43,000/- to the carrier transporter Zinka
Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd (Black buck) with its local contact
situated at Hazipur, Vaishali, Bihar having Mobile No.
7979021214 through truck bearing Registration No. WB-25L-
6403 owned by Ramjan Ali and being driven by Nitish Kumar
Yadav Sinha. However, the same consignment was not delivered
at the destination point.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76617 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that petitioner has shown by the police
as a local contact of the carrier Zinka Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd
(Black buck), but he is no way involved in this whole
transaction. He also submits that under Section 10 of the Carrier
Act, before filing any proceeding against the carrier, there is
provision for mandatory notice of six months, but there is no
reference to any notice given to the carrier before filing this
criminal case. He further submits that provision of notice has
been purposely incorporated in the Carrier Act by the
Parliament with intent to give opportunity to the carrier to
redress the grievance of consumers of any. Hence, the F.I.R.
itself is not maintainable and the petitioner has nothing to do
with the alleged offence.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76617 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/4
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named,
to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned concerned Court Below, in connection with Bihta P.S.
Case No. 484 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the
following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent other than
the disclosed one, learned court below shall cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite
his knowledge of the same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
U T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76617 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/4
Checking your session…