Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was arrested in connection with a complaint alleging cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and a cheque‑bounce offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He had purportedly sold a parcel of land, taken an advance, but the land actually belonged to the Waqf Board and the cheques issued for refund were dishonoured. The petitioner claimed the matter was purely a civil dispute, that there was no entrustment or dishonest intention, and that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of process. The State and the complainant opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s three prior criminal antecedents. Considering the facts, the court found that bail was appropriate and ordered his release on bond with sureties, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are satisfied in the present case.
- Whether the fresh cognizance order dated 16‑08‑2025 is valid.
- Whether the criminal proceedings constitute a misuse of process given the civil nature of the dispute.
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- cheque bounce
- civil remedy
- misuse of process
- Waqf property
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84292 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8015 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar S/O Sri Bijendra Singh R/O Village- Madhopur, Police
Station- Didarganj, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dharmendra Kumar son of Sri Shashi Kumar Yadav Resident of Village -
Chakaram, Ps- Budha Colony, Po- GPO, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
For the Complainant : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant.
Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Complaint Case No. 8015(C) of 2023 instituted for the offence
under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
138 of the N.I. Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner
entered into an agreement to sell 925 sq. ft. of land to the
complainant for Rs. 38 lakhs, received Rs. 19 lakhs as advance,
and falsely represented that he had clear title and possession
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84292 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
over the land. Despite repeated demands, the petitioner neither
measured the land nor executed the sale deed, and it later came
to light that the land belonged to the Waqf Board. When asked
to refund the amount, the petitioner issued three cheques of Rs.
5 lakhs each which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds,
and even after legal notice, he failed to return the money.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 18.07.2025. Petitioner
bears three (3) criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Learned counsel submits that the dispute relates solely to
sale and purchase of land, for which a civil remedy is available,
and the criminal case is a clear misuse of process of law. The
fresh cognizance order dated 16.08.2025 was passed without
any new evidence, amounting to an impermissible review
beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. No ingredients of
Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC are made out, as there was
neither entrustment nor dishonest intention from inception. It is
submitted that the cheque was a blank security cheque, allegedly
misused despite repayment of the entire amount, and at best the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84292 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
case falls only under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is lastly
submitted that the criminal proceedings have been initiated only
to harass and pressurize the petitioner.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant
of bail to the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and period of custody of the petitioner, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Complaint Case No.
8015(C) of 2023.
9. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments, preferably within a period of four
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…