Patna High Court
Manzar Ansari@Md. Manzar AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for pre‑arrest bail and granted it subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Manzar Ansari, Umair Alam and Anjum Praveen, were charged under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471/34 for allegedly cheating Rs.20.81 lakh by promising employment in BELTRON. They contended that the alleged contract arose from a partnership agreement dated 13‑06‑2020, which suffered losses due to the Covid‑19 pandemic, and that the FIR was a false accusation aimed at recovering the lost money. The State opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the factual backdrop, the nature of the alleged contract, and relevant precedents on bail in fraud cases. Finding that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case for bail, the Court directed that they be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and sureties, and conditioned the order on verification of any other criminal antecedents. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery under the IPC.
- Whether the alleged employment contract is void and thus a civil matter, affecting the criminal liability.
- Whether the circumstances of the Covid‑19 induced business loss justify bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- cheating
- fraud
- IPC sections 420
- IPC section 406
- IPC section 467
- IPC section 468
- IPC section 471
- contract void
- civil remedy
- Covid‑19 impact
- partnership agreement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88936 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2025 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District-
Madhubani
======================================================
1. Manzar Ansari@Md. Manzar Ansari
2. Umair Alam @ Md. Umair Alam @ Md. Umaio,
Both are son of Md. Shoaib @ Shoeb Ansari
3. Anjum Praveen @ Anjum Perween W/O Manzar Ansari
All are Resident of Village- Goapokar, P.S.- Nagar, Dist- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ram Sevak
Choudhary, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with
Madhubani Town P.S.Case No.414 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and
471/34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution story in short is that the petitioner
along with his wife and brother cheated Rs.20,81,000/- from the
informant on the pretext of providing job in Beltron Company.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 had entered into a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88936 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
partnership agreement on 13.06.2020 and the memorandum of
the Understanding (MoU) has been brought on record by way of
Annexure -P/2 to the bail application and during the said period,
Covid-19 Pandemic broke out leading to loss in the business and
to realize the amount, which the partnership Firm suffered, the
petitioners have been made accused on the basis of false
accusation that on the basis of false promise, petitioners have
realized a sum of Rs.20,81,000/- in a fraudulent manner from
the informant.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that from the
very allegation, it appears that the contract arising out of the
alleged promise made by the petitioners to provide employment
in BELTRON is void and in support thereof, the petitioners have
referred to several judgments of the Apex Court in this regard :
(I) Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Ors. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 601
(II) Vijay Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported
in (2011) 1 PLJR 780
(III) Manju Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in
(2017) 2 PLJR 560
(IV) Narender Prasad Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
reported in (2019) SCC Online Pat 403
(V) Prahlad Rai and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar in Cr.
Misc. No.6097 of 2015 vide order dated 15.05.2019 and
(VI) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335.
6. Learned counsel, in this background, submitted
that such a contract can only be termed an unethical transaction,
in respect of which civil remedies may not be sustainable. It was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88936 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
further contended that the dispute has been raised solely with a
mala fide intention to realize and recover the tainted money
through coercive means, under the garb of threats of criminal
proceedings.
7. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the nature of
allegation made in the FIR and the background in which the
petitioners have made out a case that as a result of loss in the
partnership business on the basis of false accusation they have
been made accused in the present case and the record reveals
that the present FIR has been lodged in the year, 2025 whereas
the petitioners and the informant were dealing with the
partnership business for which they had entered into an
agreement in the year, 2020 and as claimed by the petitioners
that due to loss suffered in the said business, the informant with
an intention to recover alleged tainted money by coercion has
lodged the present FIR. I find that the petitioners have prima
facie made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
9. The petitioners are directed to be released on pre-
arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88936 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
learned district court within a period of four weeks from today,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned CJM, Madhubani/concerned court, in connection with
Town P.S.Case No.414 of 2025 subject to conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of BNSS of 2023
10. The learned district court is directed to verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the
petitioners are involved in some other cases as what has been
stated in paragraph No.3 of the bail application, this order will
automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…