Patna High Court
Avinash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, directing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
Avinash Kumar, a director of Hopecon Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, was alleged to have set up a partnership firm with a name similar to the company, obtained GST registration, opened a bank account and allegedly siphoned funds amounting to about Rs.6.6 crore, also threatening the informant’s husband. The petitioner filed an application for regular bail in connection with FIR No.357/2025, which charged him under IPC sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 469, 506 and 34. The State opposed bail, contending the offences were grave, involving fraud, misappropriation and threats, and that the petitioner had produced forged documents. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over four months, a chargesheet had been filed, and that a prior order had stayed coercive steps pending further proceedings. Considering the circumstances, the Court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting regular bail to the petitioner given the nature and seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s custody for over four months and the filing of a chargesheet preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act — s. 453
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 506
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC offences
- fraud
- company law
- misappropriation of funds
- threats
- partnership firm
- GST registration
- anticipatory bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87295 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2025 Thana- PATLIPUTRA District- Patna
======================================================
Avinash Kumar S/o Suresh Prasad Jaiswal @ Suresh Prasad Resident at
Mohalla Magadh Colony, Kurji, P.O.- Sadaquat Ashram, Patna, P.S.- Digha,
District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate
Ms. Jaya Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case
no.357 of 2025 registered under sections 420, 406, 419, 467,
468, 469, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that she is a Director and shareholder of Hopecon Infra Projects
Private Limited which is a company registered under the
Companies Act. She further states that the petitioner is amongst
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87295 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/7
the four Directors of the Company. Without informing the Board
of Directors, the petitioner constituted a partnership firm with
one Reena Kumari and used the name of the firm as Hopecon
Infra Projects Private Limited which is similar to the name of
the Company. He also took a GST registration and opened a
Bank account in the Punjab National Bank. The partnership
deed of the firm was drafted by Rajeev Kumar, who is the
statutory auditor of the Company. Subsequently on 27.2.2025,
the petitioner changed the name of the firm to Hopecon Infra
Contractors only to create confusion in the mind of the public.
Sudhanshu Kumar was also added in the partnership firm. GST
return of the said firm has been filed by Rajeev Kumar. On
coming to know these facts, the husband of the petitioner Uma
Shankar Sharma tried to settle the matter amicably, however, the
petitioner threatened to kill him. The informant finally alleges
that the accused persons hatched a conspiracy to divert the
business of the Company and caused wrongful loss to the
Company.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
case only for the purpose of forcing him to relinquish his
proposed share in the Company ie Hopecon Infra Projects
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87295 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
3/7
Private Limited. Referring to the legal notice at Annexure P/2
series, it is submitted that while the informant and others were
aware of the facts prior to the date of the notice ie 8.2.2025, the
FIR came to be registered only after 6 months on 19.8.2025
without any explanation for the delay. It is submitted that the
partnership firm was constituted on 6.6.2023 with the petitioner
being the major shareholder. It is submitted that false allegation
with respect to the petitioner having misappropriated a sum of
Rs.6.60 crores has been levelled for which Patliputra P.S. Case
no.421 of 2025 was filed by the informant of the present case,
however, in the application for bail filed by the petitioner under
section 482 of the B.N.S.S. vide Cr. Misc. no.3846 of 2026, this
Court vide its order dated 17.2.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. no.3846
of 2026 while calling for the case diary from the learned Court
below has directed that till further orders, no coercive steps shall
be taken against the petitioner in connection with Patliputra P.S.
Case no.421 of 2025. Learned Senior counsel further submits
that more than six months after service of the legal notice, the
instant FIR has been registered only with the allegation that the
partnership firm has been named in such a manner as to defraud
the Company. Referring to the GST return at page 39A and the
Bank transaction at page 40, it is submitted that the same are nil.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87295 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
4/7
It is further submitted that co-accused Reena Kumari has been
enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 27.11.2025 passed
in ABP no.4557 of 2025 by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge XXXIII, Patna Sadar, Patna. The petitioner who
is in custody since 5.10.2025 undertakes to cooperate in the
investigation/trial. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned Senior counsel appearing for the
informant. It is submitted on behalf of the informant that the
petitioner who is named in the FIR is a key conspirator who
inspite of being a Director of the Company in question has
dishonestly floated and operated a parallel entity with a similar
name with the sole intention of misappropriating the goodwill of
the informant’s Company. There has been no delay in lodging of
the FIR nor is it a case of civil nature. It is an incorrect assertion
on behalf of the petitioner to state that there has been no
financial transaction. In fact, Rs.5.84 crores was illegally
siphoned without consent or authorisation of the shareholders or
the Board of Directors. Wrongful loss has been caused to the
Company and wrongful gain to the petitioner and his firm. On
being confronted, the petitioner also issued threats on the life of
the informant’s husband and has further produced a forged and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87295 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
5/7
fabricated no objection certificate before the learned Court
below during the bail proceedings which has led to the
informant lodging another FIR being Patliputra P.S. Case no.528
of 2025. Learned Senior counsel submits that so far as section
453 of the Companies Act is concerned, the informant could
have filed an application against some other company and not
against the petitioner as in the present case, he being one of the
Directors in this very Company. Referring to the counter
affidavit filed, it is submitted that there has been
diversion/siphoning of funds with the intention both to defraud
the Government exchequer as also the Company. The offence
being grave, the application for bail be rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, this Court finds that by
order dated 5.1.2026, this Court had on time being sought by
learned counsel for the informant granted three weeks to file a
counter affidavit explaining the loss incurred by the informant to
the tune of Rs.6 crores and odd due to the act of the petitioner.
Without going into the details of the case of the parties, as stated
in the counter affidavit and the bail petition, it may be observed
here that so far as the loss of about 6.6 crores is concerned, a
separate Patliputra P.S. Case no.421 of 2025 has been registered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87295 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
6/7
by the informant against the petitioner which is the subject
matter in the application for anticipatory bail filed by the
petitioner vide Cr. Misc. no.3846 of 2026. As stated above, this
Court vide its order dated 17.2.2026 passed in the said case has
directed that till further orders, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioner.
7. So far as the allegation on behalf of the informant
of the petitioner having produced a forged and fabricated no
objection certificate is concerned, the same is the subject matter
of Patliputra P.S. Case no.528 of 2025 lodged by the informant
against the petitioner.
8. Thus, so far as the instant case is concerned, the
allegation against the petitioner is that he set up a partnership
firm with similar name as the Company with an intention to
defraud the Company and the informant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of allegations in the FIR, the submissions made as
noted herein above, the petitioner having remained in custody
for over 4 months since 5.10.2025 and chargesheet having been
submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be
enlarged on bail in connection with Patliputra P.S. Case no.357
of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87295 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
7/7
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-
X, Patna.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…