Dismissed¶35

Pranav Praveen v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC28 Jul 2025CR. MISC./13454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Rudra Prakash Mishra J, order dated 28-07-2025: bail prayers rejected in Cr. Misc. Nos. 13454 and 19065 of 2025 arising from Balia (Begusarai) P.S. Case No. 141/2017 (IPC Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B)/34) alleging defalcation of Rs. 11,62,800/- of ATM deposit cash by petitioners Pranav Praveen and Ramudgar Mahto; charge-sheet filed; petitioners in custody since 18/20.12.2024; trial to be expedited; bail prayer renewable before the Court below if trial not concluded within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; however, liberty reserved to the petitioners to renew their bail prayer in the Court below if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt/production, and the trial Court directed to expedite the Trial. ¶35

Pranav Praveen Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (Pranav Praveen and Ramudgar Mahto) should be granted bail in connection with Balia P.S. Case No. 141 of 2017, instituted for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B)/34 IPC, arising from the alleged defalcation of Rs. 11,62,800/- of cash meant for ATM deposits.

¶24

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail is rejected, and the trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

¶35

Key takeaways

If the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioners will have liberty to renew their prayer for bail in the Court below (conditional, futuristic direction).obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Linked bail applications (Cr. Misc. Nos. 13454 and 19065 of 2025) by Pranav Praveen and Ramudgar Mahto in Balia P.S. Case No. 141 of 2017 (District Begusarai), instituted for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B)/34 IPC: the petitioners and others, engaged in depositing cash in an ATM machine, are alleged to have defalcated Rs. 11,62,800/-. Charge-sheet submitted; both petitioners stated to be in custody since December 2024 with no criminal antecedents (per counsel). Considering the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, the Court declined bail and rejected the prayers, directed the trial Court to expedite the trial, and held that if the trial is not concluded within six months from receipt/production the petitioners may renew their bail prayer before the Court below. - Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.; 28-07-2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13454 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2017 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pranav Praveen Son of Ram Naresh singh village- Hanumangarhi, PsMuffasil, Dist- Begusarai

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Santosh Kumar Singh, S/O Parmanand Singh LAw Officer, Bihar Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. Patna. Hanuman Nagar, 90 Ft Road Ps- Kankarbagh, Dist- Patna

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

with

¶12

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19065 of 2025

¶13

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2017 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai

¶14

====================================================== Ramudgar Mahto Son of Anandlal Mahto Resident of village- Thahra, Post Gopalpur, P.S.- Vahin O.P., District -Samastipur

¶15

... ... Petitioner/s

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Bihar

¶18

Santosh Kumar Singh Son of Parmand Singh Resident of Village- Hanuman Nagar, 90 feet Road, Thana- Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna

¶19

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶20

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13454 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19065 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Asmita Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

7 28-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶23

APP for the State and perused the case diary.

¶24

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Balia

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13454 of 2025(7) dt.28-07-2025 2/3

¶26

P.S. Case No. 141 of 2017, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioners and others who were doing the duty of depositing cash in the ATM machine are said to have defalcated Rs. 11,62,800/-.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners.

¶29

In Cr. Misc. No. 13454 of 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of about five months in lodging the FIR. The petitioner was an employee in the company of the informant but he did not have the password of the alleged ATM or vault. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not on duty at the time of occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

¶30

In Cr. Misc. No. 19065 of 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was an employee in informant’s company and he quit his job in the month of

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13454 of 2025(7) dt.28-07-2025 3/3

¶32

December, 2016 and the FIR was lodged on 14.06.2017. The present case was falsely filed by the informant against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

¶33

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR and was posted in the firm at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Hence the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.

¶35

The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioners will have liberty to renew their prayer for bail in the Court below.

¶36

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶37

Rajorshi/-

¶38

U T

Pranav Praveen v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav Praveen v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Rai @ Rakesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Naresh Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sugandha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Ashik Kumar Vs The State of Bihar