Patna High Court
Indu Bhushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to a bail bond and strict conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Indu Bhushan Kumar, was named in an FIR (Case No. 460 of 2025) for alleged misappropriation of cheques amounting to Rs. 14,35,581, invoking sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. The informant, a hospital owner, claimed the petitioner, as manager‑accountant, diverted funds to other individuals. The petitioner contended he had no criminal antecedent, had already paid part of the alleged loss, and was willing to pay the remaining Rs. 10,07,357 in installments, seeking release from the criminal case. The informant agreed to a joint petition for settlement once the full amount was paid. The Court, after considering the submissions, decided to grant anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and specific conditions regarding sureties, cooperation with investigation, court appearances, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order directs that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested or surrendered within six weeks, provided the conditions are complied with.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate relief for a petitioner apprehending arrest in a criminal case involving alleged financial misappropriation?
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under the circumstances presented, and what conditions may be imposed?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- fraud
- misappropriation
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9984 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-460 Year-2025 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna
======================================================
Indu Bhushan Kumar Son of Bodhan prasad Resident of Mohalla- Prahlad
Nagar, Daruara, PS- Noorsarai, Dist- Nalanda , Biharsharif At Present
Resident of C/o- Late Yugeshwar Sharma and Sunil Sharma House no. B-36,
Indrapuri (Ramnagari), PS- Rajiv Nagar, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned
counsel representing the informant as also Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Singh, learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 460 of 2025
registered for the offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338,
336(3) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., lodged on 13.07.2025 by the
informant, Kumar Rajesh Ranjan.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant and his
wife runs a hospital at Magistrate Colony, Patna in the name of
Satyadev Multi Specialty Hospital. For smooth financial
transaction, he appointed the petitioner as manager-cum-
accountant in the year 2020 and he was to make payment to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9984 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
Pharmaceuticals Companies after checking the bills. The
allegations is that when he got information from some
companies that they are not receiving payment for the delivery
that were made, the informant personally looked into the matter
and came to know that two different cheques worth Rs.
14,35,581 have been misappropriated and actually went to the
accounts of amongst other Nitish Kumar and Ajay Kumar. This
followed the F.I.R..
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
sincerely worked in the hospital and still is in the F.I.R. net.
Further, Ajay Kumar paid Rs.28,224/- which followed grant of
relief by the learned Sessions Judge. At that time, the petitioner
also paid Rs.4,00,000/- and thus now the alleged amount has
come down to Rs.10,07,357/-.
5. He further submits that he do not have criminal
antecedent and want to get out of this criminal case and despite
having financial crisis, is ready to pay back Rs.10,07,357/-
without accepting the allegation. The submission is that:
(i) he intends to pay a Demand Draft
of Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the local branch of
State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank in
favour of the informant at the time of execution
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9984 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
of bail, if granted relief;
(ii) further, for the rest amount i.e.
Rs.5,07,357/- he is ready to pay in five equal
installments in next ten months i.e. by 31 st
December, 2026.
6. Learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Ashok
Kumar, on instruction, submits that he is a Doctor and runs a
hospital, the petitioner has served under him for quite some
time, if he is ready to pay the amount (Rs.10,07,357/-), the
informant is also ready to take extra steps to ensure that the
present case comes to an end and both the parties shall be
further filing a joint petition before an appropriate court but only
after the entire aforesaid amount is paid.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties, this Court is inclined to extend the petitioner the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt
of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Patna, in connection with Rajiv Nagar P.S. Case No. 460 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9984 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
2025 subject to the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall be appearing before the Police
Station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…