Patna High Court

Anand SrivastavaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

Anand Srivastava sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (Case No. 475 of 2025) alleged that he cheated a contractor by diverting funds meant for an FCI godown construction, amounting to about Rs. 7.46 crore. The informant claimed the petitioner received the money, slowed the work, and stopped further communication, leading to accusations of fraud. The petitioner admitted a prior similar criminal antecedent, while the informant highlighted an additional conviction of the petitioner under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was not disclosed earlier. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations and the suppression of the prior conviction. Consequently, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of cheating and fraud under the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the non-disclosure of a prior conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, warrants denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3, 318(2), 5
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138, 141

Subjects

anticipatory bail
cheating
fraud
prior conviction
suppression of facts
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9824 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-475 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN District-
                                                       Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Anand Srivastava S/o Late Hem Chandra Srivastava Resident of Village -
                 Kishunpura, P.S - Lakari Nabibganj (Madarpur), District - Siwan
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Akhileshwar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Kumar Harshwardhan,Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-02-2026                   Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 475 of 2025 instituted under

                   Sections 318(2) and 3/5 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023

                   lodged on        22.06.2025 by the informant, Abhisekh Shankar

                   Sahi.

                                3. As per the FIR, the informant alleged that for the

                   construction of FCI godown, a contract of Rs. 7.5 crore was

                   made out and in the process, in the year 2023, Rs.75,00,000/-

                   was transferred. Further allegation is that altogether Rs.7.46

                   crore was deposited in the account of the petitioner. However,

                   he chose to slow the construction and finally stopped and

                   wanted       Rs.50,00,000/-       further.     Accordingly,       he     paid

                   Rs.18,00,000/- on 19.11.2024 but thereafter, he stopped even

                   picking up the phones. This followed another transfer of

                   Rs.15,0000/- through his brother but finally they came to the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9824 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     conclusion that the petitioner has duped the amount which

                     followed the FIR.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they

                     have completed the work but only to harass, the present FIR. He

                     however, accepts that the petitioner has criminal antecedent of

                     the same nature.

                                  5. The informant is appearing in this case and he

                     submits that not only the petitioner has criminal antecedent of

                     the same nature, in fact, he stands convicted in the Court of

                     Metropolitan Magistrate,06th, Mazgaon, Mumbai under section

                     138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, a fact

                     which has not been brought on record in para-03. He has

                     provided the copy of the order dated 04.01.2018. The petitioner

                     stands convicted in connection with Case No. 1347/SS/2016.

                                  6. Considering the allegation that has come coupled

                     with the fact that there is suppression of fact regarding his

                     conviction, in that background, this Court is not inclined to

                     extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

                                  7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail stands rejected.



                                                    (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…