Patna High Court
Suresh GiriversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner on the condition of a bail bond and sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Giri, was arrested in connection with a property dispute where the informant alleged fraud, cheating, and threats of extortion. The FIR listed offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 447, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34. The petitioner contended that the matter was purely civil, that he was falsely implicated, and that he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 22 September 2025. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that specific fraud allegations existed and that the accused were causing daily disturbances. After hearing both sides, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the length of custody, and the filing of the charge‑sheet, and ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite charges of fraud, cheating and extortion under the IPC.
- Whether the allegations constitute a civil dispute that does not warrant continued detention.
- Whether the duration of custody and filing of the charge‑sheet justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 406, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- cheating
- property dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- civil nature
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91720 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2021 Thana- CHHATAUNI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Suresh Giri Son of Late Yogendra Giri Resident of Village- Chhota
Bariyarpur, P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar, S/O- Late Asharfi Sah Resident of Vill- Chhota Bariyarpur,
P.S.- Chhatauni, District- East champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case no.
148 of 2021 registered under sections 341, 323, 447, 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that an agreement for sale was entered into by the vendor i.e. the
petitioner herein and the informant with respect to the
immovable property on 25.4.2006. Subsequently on the
informant attempting to construct a boundary wall, it is stated
that three accused persons came and started to hurl abuses and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91720 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
gave threats to the informant. On enquiry, it transpire that the
petitioner had also executed some document in their favour on
13.9.2007. As such, the informant states that the accused
persons and specially the petitioner who happens to be his
vendor have entered into a conspiracy to cheat him of the sum
of the total consideration amount and are also giving threats to
pay rangdari of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, the nature of which
is purely civil. Even from the contents of the FIR, it would transpire
that while the informant states that agreement was entered into with
him on 25.4.2006, the so called understanding with the other accused
persons is alleged to be more that a year later on 13.9.2007. The
petitioner categorically denies the allegations levelled in the FIR. He
is in custody since 22.9.2025 and chargesheet has been submitted in
the case. He has no criminal antecedent.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that there is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed
fraud and of having cheated the informant by once again
entering into an agreement with the other FIR named accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91720 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
persons subsequent to the sale of the land to the informant.
Disturbance has been created everyday by the accused persons.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the nature of allegation against the
petitioner in the FIR, the petitioner having remained in custody
for over five months since 22.9.2025 and chargesheet having
been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be
enlarged on bail in connection with Chhatauni P.S. Case no. 148 of
2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…