Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar SinhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner at the present stage of the proceedings.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sinha, an accountant at the informant's petrol pump, was charged with defalcating Rs.26.15 lakh and faced allegations of being tied up and injured by the informant. He sought regular bail for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act. The State argued that the petitioner had admitted the fraud and submitted a signed confession, while the petitioner claimed the FIR was filed belatedly and the alleged repayment promise was false. The informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged fraud and the petitioner's confession. The Court, after considering the facts, declined to grant bail at this stage, allowing the petitioner to reapply after six months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of defalcation under Sections 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 316(4), 316(5), 318(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- defalcation
- fraud
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85182 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- TARABARI District- Araria
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Sinha son of Bhuvneshwar Prasad @ Bhuvneshwar Prasad
Sinha Resident of Dhaneshwari , Ward No.-10, P.S. -BHARGAMA DIST.
ARARIA P/A- Resident of Sri Bhagwate Namah Data Dharmraj Asthan
Mehta Tola, Madhubani, P.S.-Madhubani, Dist- Purnia
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumar Praveen, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 02-02-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2),
316(4), 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner who was working as accountant at petrol pump of
informant. He along with one Nikesh Kumar Verma has defalcated
altogether Rs.26,15,000/- by not depositing the cash of different
dates.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
on 20.08.2025, wife of the petitioner received a phone call by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85182 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
which she was informed about the proceeds and when she came at
the brick kiln of the informant, she found her husband tied with
chair and found several injuries on his hand. When she raised
objection then she was abused by the informant and his yes men. It
is further alleged that on 21.08.2025, the wife of the petitioner
filed an application before S.P., Araria stating all the facts about
the application that it was given to the Officer in-charge of
Tarabari P.S. and wife of the petitioner was directed to send her
application on his whatsapp number but no action was taken by
him on the application of the petitioner’s wife.
5. The case of the petitioner is that defalcation of money
by the petitioner was in between 23.09.2024 to 19.04.2025 but
final calculation of money was done on 16.08.2025 in which
defalcated money was Rs.26,15,000/- and both accused persons
had accepted their guilt and have promised to deposit the
defalcated money by 23.08.2025 is a false story.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
FIR has been filed at belated stage without any explanation.
7. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently
opposed the bail and has submitted that from perusal of the FIR
and from perusal of the case diary it is clear that the petitioner has
defalcated the sum as alleged in the FIR. Not only this, he has
admitted before police and has also given his kaboolnama which is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85182 of 2025(3) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
in his signature.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months
if the trial is not concluded.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…