Patna High Court
Nandu Kumar @ Nandu GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was granted subject to a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, a condition to pay Rs. 50,000 within a month, and a direction to refer the matter to mediation.
Summary
Petitioner Nandu Kumar sought bail in a case registered in 2018 under IPC sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 relating to alleged non‑payment of maize and dishonoured cheques. The prosecution alleged he received maize worth Rs. 50,62,506, paid only Rs. 35,46,319 and issued a Rs. 50,000 cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The petitioner argued the matter was a commercial dispute, that he owed only Rs. 50,000, was ready to settle, and that the complainant had not invoked Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The State opposed bail, citing three prior criminal cases against the petitioner. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, conditioned on payment of Rs. 50,000 within a month, and directed the trial court to refer the case to mediation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 467 and 468.
- Whether the alleged dishonour of cheques amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
- Whether the dispute can be resolved through mediation in lieu of continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 467, 468
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- forgery
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- mediation
- criminal antecedent
- Indian Penal Code
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89410 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2018 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
======================================================
Nandu Kumar @ Nandu Gupta S/o Shiv Narayan Shah R/o House No.-1469,
Deep Complex, Hallo Majra, Dist- Chandigarh, 160002.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vidyanand Gupta S/o Late- Anandi Sah R/o Village- Bazar Samiti,
Teengachiya, P.S- Katihar, Dist- Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Kathihar P.S. Case No. 222 of 2018 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that there
was a business transaction between the complainant and the
petitioner. The petitioner has taken maize worth Rs. 50,62,506/-.
It is further alleged that he has paid only Rs. 35,46,319/- and has
not paid the remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 15,88,187/-. It is further
alleged that he has issued a check for Rs. 50,000/- those checks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89410 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/3
were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the account.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case
of a business transaction between the parties, and as per his
calculation, only Rs. 50,000/- is remaining with him. It has
further been submitted that the informant has never filed under
Section 138 of the NIA Act; this falsifies his averment in the
complaint that the petitioner has issued two checks. It has also
been submitted that this is a dispute between business
transactions, which can be settled by proper accounting from
both sides. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.
50,000/- and is also ready for proper accounting and settlement
of the case. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing
in judicial custody since 03.06.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal
antecedent of three cases.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with a condition that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89410 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/3
the petitioner shall pay Rs. 50,000/- within a month, after
being bailed out. The above named petitioner is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten
thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Katihar in connection with Kathihar P.S. Case No. 222 of
2018.
7. Learned trial court is directed to send the case for
mediation.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…