Dismissed¶21

Anshu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Dec 2025CR. MISC./36067/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; Section 420 IPC; Section 138 N.I. Act; cheque dishonour; stop payment of cheque; complaint case C-331 of 2023; East Champaran; Bihar; alleged land sale of Rs. 21 lakhs; alleged alteration of Rs. 1 lakh cheque to Rs. 21 lakhs; Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J; order dated 10-12-2025; Cr. Misc. No.36067 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of anticipatory bail, and the application is accordingly rejected. ¶21

Anshu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36067 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2023 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran

¶3

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

¶4

Anshu Kumar Son of Akhilesh Kumar Singh Village- Bhadwar ps- Chandi, Dist- Bhojpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar bihar

¶8

Dhirendra Kumar son of Ramekwal Sharma village- Barwa Khurd, tolajagirha, Ps- Kundwa chainpur, Dist- East Champaran

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

4 10-12-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶14

learned APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. C- 331 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶16

According to complaint petition, the petitioner agreed to sell his land in favour of the complainant. In lieu thereof, the complainant paid Rs. 21 lakhs to the petitioner. The petitioner did not execute the sale deed. On repeated demands, he gave a cheque of Rs. 21 lakhs to the complainant, but it was dishonored by the Bank because there was direction of the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36067 of 2025(4) dt.10-12-2025 2/2

¶18

petitioner for stoppage of the payment.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. There is no agreement between the petitioner and the complainant for sale of the land. He has submitted further that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 1 lakh and by alteration, the complainant made it of Rs. 21 lakhs and it was the reason for stoppage of the payment.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents of similar nature of cases which he has concealed in his para-3 of the bail petition.

¶21

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

¶22

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶23

kundan/-

¶24

U T

Anshu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Bhagat Vs The State of Bihar

Savitri Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Jiyaul Haque @ Saheb Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Premavtar Bharti @ Firoz Bharti@ Firoz Bhari Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar