Somitra Shanker @ Somitra Shankar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

Somitra Shanker @ Somitra Shankar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional anticipatory bail: petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon arrest/surrender within eight weeks, on bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st class-cum-A.M.-XII, Patna in Complaint Case No. 7103(c) of 2022, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC conditions and Nazarat deposit directions (Rs. 3,00,000/- at furnishing; Rs. 13,50,000/- in six installments within one year); non-compliance entitles the court below to cancel the bail-bond.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who apprehends arrest in Complaint Case punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 506 IPC (arising out of PS Case No. 7103 of 2022, Patna), should be granted anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner, in the event of arrest/surrender within eight weeks, to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st class-cum-A.M.-XII, Patna in Complaint Case No. 7103(c) of 2022, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and further conditions imposed.

Key takeaways

Condition (A): at the time of furnishing bail-bond, petitioner shall deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- in the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and furnish the receipt alongwith the bail-bond.ratio¶19
Condition (B): rest amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- to be deposited in the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court in six installments within one year (from the date of furnishing bail-bond).ratio¶22
Condition (C): the aforesaid payments are subject to the final outcome of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted (Patna High Court,单 Judge Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.; order dt. 05-02-2025) — Petitioner apprehending arrest in Complaint Case No. 7103(c) of 2022, P.S. Patna Complaint Case, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 506 IPC (alleged non-execution of sale-deed despite receipt of Rs. 82,51,000/- as consideration money). Petitioner admitted receipt, returned Rs. 64,51,000/-, paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in first mediation, leaving Rs. 16,50,000/- payable; opposite party no. 2 did not oppose installment payment in Nazarat. Bail ordered on arrest/surrender within eight weeks on bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two like sureties, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC, with conditions: Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited in Nazarat at furnishing of bail-bond and balance Rs. 13,50,000/- in six installments within one year; payments subject to final outcome; default empowers court below to cancel bail-bond. Order passed without examining merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20535 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7103 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

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

SOMITRA SHANKER @ SOMITRA SHANKAR S/O SUSHIL KUMAR DUBEY R/O VILL-MUSALLAHAPUR, P.S-SULTANGANJ, DIST-PATNA

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

ADITYA KUMAR S/O ARJUN PRASAD R/O VILLAGE- MILAN BHAWAN, KALA MANCH COMPOUND, P.S- GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTT.- PATNA

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shovendra Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv.for OP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

7 05-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and

informant/opposite party no. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that despite taking consideration money of Rs. 82,51,000/- from the complainant/opp.party no. 2, the petitioner did not execute sale-deed in favour of opposite party no. 2 and also failed to return the alleged money.

By way of filing supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20535 of 2024(7) dt.05-02-2025 2/3

had taken Rs. 82,51,000/- from the complainant, as consideration money, to sell his landed property, but due to some difficulty, he could not execute sale-deed in favour of complainant. He further submits that petitioner has already returned Rs. 64,51,000/- to complainant and out of balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/-, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,50,000/- in the first mediation before the Mediation Centre and now, Rs. 16,50,000/- is left to be paid to opposite party no. 2, for which, he is ready to pay in easy installments in the Nazarat of concerned Civil Court, for which, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not oppose.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1^st class-cum-A.M.-XII, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 7103(c) of 2022, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further following conditions:

“(A) At the time of furnishing bail-bond, the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lacs) in the Nazarat of concerned Civil Court and receipt

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20535 of 2024(7) dt.05-02-2025 3/3

of the same shall be furnished alongwith bail-bond.

(B) Rest amount i.e. Rs. 13,50,000/- (Thirteen Lacs & fifty thousand) shall be deposited in the Nazarat of concerned Civil Court in six installments within a period of one year from the date of furnishing bail-bond.

(C) The aforesaid payment shall be subject to final outcome of the case.

(D) If petitioner fails to comply the direction of this Court, the learned Court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail-bond.”

This order has been passed, without going into the merit of the case, only for the purpose of considering the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

anay

U T