Patna High Court
Amit Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar @ Verma JeeversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The bail application was dismissed; the petitioner was not granted bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was arrested in connection with a fraud case alleging he duped an informant of approximately two crore rupees and impersonated an employee of the Food Corporation of India. He faces charges under IPC sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 34 (common intention) and under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 341(1). The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the transactions cited in the FIR pertain to others, and that he is not an FCI employee, while acknowledging six prior criminal antecedents. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal record. The High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant bail, dismissing the application but allowing the petitioner to re‑apply in the future.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail jurisprudence applicable to offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 34 and B.N.S. sections 336(3), 338, 340(2), 341(1) in view of the seriousness of the alleged fraud?
- Do the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations justify the denial of bail?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 336(3), 338, 340(2), 341(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- impersonation
- IPC
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedents
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90835 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2024 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Amit Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar @ Verma Jee, Son of Ramashray Singh, R/o
Village - Sisirit Tola(Keshav Singh Tola), P.S. - Dharampura, Dist. - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Shankar Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh, Adv.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sagar Suman, Adv.
Mr. Ranjeev Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Surya Swetabh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Natwar
P.S. Case No. 140 of 2024, dated 14.08.2024, instituted for the
offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 341(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) were added later on.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90835 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had
duped the informant for almost rupees two crores.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion.
It has been submitted that the transactions, which have been
shown in the F.I.R., does not relate to the petitioner rather it has
been attributed in the name of other persons and a firm. It has
also been submitted that the petitioner is not an employee of the
F.C.I. and it has wrongly been stated in the F.I.R. that he is an
employee of the F.C.I. and on such presumption, he has falsely
been implicated in this case. It has been admitted that though
the petitioner has six criminal antecedents against his name, but
in the present case he is in custody since 18.09.2025.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that the petitioner has not only defrauded the
informant of his valuable money, but he has also played
mischief with the organization like the F.C.I. It has further been
submitted that it is a case of impersonation and the petitioner
projecting himself to be an employee of the F.C.I. and has duped
the informant. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had
been instrumental in getting the amounts deposited in the third
party account(s) and, in fact, he is the main conspirator.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90835 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the nature of allegations levelled against the
petitioner as also his criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to
grant him bail.
8. The prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner is,
accordingly, rejected.
9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach
this Court for grant of bail, as and when advised.
10. The application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…