Allowed¶23

Rajan Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Sept 2025CR. MISC./31428/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; cheating/breach-of-trust allegations over failed investment returns totalling Rs. 15 lakhs; amount prima facie deposited with company, not petitioner; clean antecedents; custody since 31.01.2025; Kateya P.S. Case No. 225 of 2021, Gopalganj; Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two like sureties; conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS; A.C.J.M.-VI Gopalganj.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 225 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 learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Gopalganj/concerned court, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. ¶23

Rajan Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, named in the FIR and in custody since 31.01.2025 in Kateya P.S. Case No. 225 of 2021 (Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act), is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Court's answer

Taking note that the amount in issue was prima facie deposited with the company and not with the petitioner, coupled with his clean antecedents and custody since 31.01.2025, the Court found bail warranted.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner directed to be released on bail in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 225 of 2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.31428 of 2025, decided 04-09-2025: Bail granted to the petitioner, named in the FIR in Kateya P.S. Case No. 225 of 2021 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, who was in custody since 31.01.2025. Per the FIR, the informant received returns on two small investments (Rs. 30,000 on Rs. 20,000; Rs. 45,000 on Rs. 30,000), but the final Rs. 15 lakhs invested with the petitioner and his company yielded no return. The Court took note that the amount in issue was prima facie deposited with the company and not with the petitioner, and that he was a man of clean antecedents; the defence also pointed to completion of investigation. The petitioner was directed to be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Gopalganj/concerned court, subject to the conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31428 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2021 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj

¶3

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

¶4

Rajan Pandey S/o Late Dhamalu Pandey R/o Village- Lohati, P.S.- Kateya, Dist.- Gopalganj

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Adv : Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Anand Vardhan, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 04-09-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶12

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kateya

¶14

P.S. Case No. 225 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 fo the Arms Act.

¶15

The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 31.01.2025.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner is to cheat informant, where as per FIR on first instance return of Rs. 30,000/- was given to informant on investment of Rs. 20,000/-, on second instance return of Rs. 45,000/- was given to informant on investment of Rs. 30,000/- and finally Rs. 15 lakhs was

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31428 of 2025(3) dt.04-09-2025 2/3

¶18

invested with petitioner and his company, where no return was given to the informant.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that both parties are agnates and known to each other and due to certain money disputes present false implication was raised. It is submitted that no such company is existing as stated in FIR and it so, it must be impleaded as party, but on perusal of column 7 of the FIR itself, it appears that company was not made accused. It is also submitted by learned counsel that even from the perusal of FIR it transpires that payment was made to the company and not to this petitioner. Arguing further in this context, learned counsel took reference of paragraph no. 134 of the case diary, where it appears that company was running in the house of informant itself and no supportive documents were collected, which may suggest prima-facie that allegation of informant as raised against petitioner and this company may get its strength. While concluding the argument it is submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and moreover, investigation of this case has already completed, and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

¶20

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, while opposing the prayer

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31428 of 2025(3) dt.04-09-2025 3/3

¶22

for bail submitted that payment of Rs. 5 lakh was made to the account of the petitioner, but he could not explain in what capacity this payment was transferred to the account of this petitioner despite allegation that entire amount of Rs. 15 lakh was deposited with company as per FIR.

¶23

In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as the amount in issue prima-facie deposited with company and not with this petitioner, coupled with the fact as petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and remains in custody since 31.01.2025, accordingly above named petitioner, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 225 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 learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Gopalganj/concerned court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S.

¶24

S.Tripathi/-

¶25

U T

¶26

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

Rajan Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Pandey 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

Salma @ Slma Vs The State of Bihar

Abdul Salam @ Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Nazma Khatoon @ Nazma Khattoon Vs The State of Bihar

Mohammad Hakim Vs The State of Bihar

Abhirendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Sukhu Mandal Vs The State of Bihar