Patna High Court

Mayank Sarraf LuckyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: S B P SINGH

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bail bond and sureties, under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Summary

The petitioner, Mayank Sarraf Lucky, was implicated in a fraud case involving Rs.10.65 lakh where duplicate gold jewellery were allegedly sold and cheques issued were dishonoured. He was charged under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contended that he was merely a signatory to an agreement and had no direct involvement in issuing the cheques, asserting his innocence and lack of criminal antecedent. The State opposed his anticipatory bail application, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail conditioned upon a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, directing compliance with Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the fraud case
Whether the petitioner’s role as a signatory makes him liable to be arrested under the charges
Applicability of Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in granting anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 318(4)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138

Subjects

anticipatory bail
fraud
cheque bounce
Negotiable Instruments Act
Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
Criminal Procedure Code
Section 138
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88843 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2024 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Mayank Sarraf Lucky S/o Rajesh Ranjan Resident of - Budhwari Tola,
                 Bodhnagar, Bagaha, Ward No. 23, Police Station - Bagaha, District - West
                 Champaran

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Vijay Kr Singh No. 1, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   05-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the

                   BNS and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

                                3. Allegation against the petitioner is of committing

                   fraud of Rs. 10,65,000/- by giving duplicate gold jewelleries.

                   Petitioner is the son of co-accused Rajesh Ranjan, who is the

                   proprietor of Durga Jewellers. When the informant approached

                   co-accused Rajesh Ranjan, for taking his money back, he along

                   with the petitioner gave multiple cheques and signed an

                   agreement to return the rest amount but all the cheques were

                   dishonored.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88843 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

          instant case with motive to harass the family members of the

          petitioner. As per FIR, no cheque has been issued by this

          petitioner. The role of the petitioner is only as a signatory of the

          registered agreement, except this, there is no allegation levelled

          against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the other co-

          accused namely Menka Kumari has already been granted

          anticipatory bail by the learned District & Additional Sessions

          Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran. Petitioner is a student having

          no criminal antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail

          application.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court

          within a period of four weeks from today, be released on

          anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

          Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

          Bagaha, West Champaran, in connection with Tr. No. 2080 of

          2025 arising out of Bagaha P.S. Case No. 313 of 2024, subject
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88843 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
                                                        3/3




                      to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

                      B.N.S.S.


                                                 (S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

khushbu/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…