Sudhanshu Shekhar @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2026)

Sudhanshu Shekhar @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Miscellaneous application seeking quashing of the conditional anticipatory bail order in A.B.P. No.1218/2019 (Complaint Case No. 2377(c)/2017) ought to be allowed, in view of the petitioner's failure to honour his undertaking to return the principal amount to O.P. No. 2.

Court's answer

The application to quash the conditional anticipatory bail order stands dismissed: after obtaining interim protection the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings and has failed to honour his own undertaking given on 17.03.2025 to return the principal amount to O.P. No. 2.

Ratio / Principle

The interim order dated 17.03.2025 stands vacated upon dismissal of the application.

Key takeaways

The learned court below is directed to conclude the trial of the complaint case within three months of communication of this order, even if the accused persons do not cooperate; a copy of the order is to be communicated to the Principal District Judge, Darbhanga through FAX or e-mail for compliance.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sandeep Kumar, J., oral order dated 20-01-2026) in Criminal Miscellaneous No.45527 of 2019: the petitioner's application to quash the conditional anticipatory bail order in A.B.P. No.1218/2019, arising from Complaint Case No. 2377(c)/2017 under Sections 420, 406 IPC & 138 NI Act, was dismissed. Although the petitioner had obtained interim protection by order dated 17.03.2025 and had undertaken on that date to return the principal amount to O.P. No. 2, the amount remained unpaid and counsel again sought adjournment. The Court held that the petitioner was delaying proceedings after getting interim protection and had failed to honour his own undertaking, dismissed the application and vacated the interim order dated 17.03.2025. The learned court below was directed to conclude the trial of the complaint case within three months of communication of the order even if the accused persons do not cooperate, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Principal District Judge, Darbhanga through FAX or e-mail for compliance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45527 of 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2377 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

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

SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR @ CHHOTU S/o Shree Brahmdev Prasad karyee Resident of Kathariya, P.S.- Darbhanga (Town), District- Darbhanga

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

Rajnish Kumar S/o Umesh Chandra Singh R/o Adarsh Colony, Road No.1 Khemnichak, P.S. Ramkrishna Nagar, District- Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suneil Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

The present application has been filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 225.05.2019 in in A.B.P. No.1218/2019 concerning Complaint Case No. 2377(c)/2017 (under Sections 420, 406 IPC & 138 NI Act). The Additional District & Sessions Judge 2nd, Patna granted anticipatory bail but imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1 lakh as first installment and another installment within 30 days, failing which bail would be cancelled.

This case was heard on 17.03.2025. Petitioner had undertaken to return the principal amount to the O.P. No. 2 but,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45527 of 2019(5) dt.20-01-2026 2/2

till date the principle amount has not been returned to O.P. No.

Today also prayer on behalf of petitioner has been made by learned counsel for adjournment. Hence, it appears that after getting interim protection, the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings. The petitioner has failed to honour his own undertaking given on 17.03.2025.

In these circumstances, this application stands dismissed and the interim order dated 17.03.2025 stands vacated.

Learned court below is directed to conclude the trial of the complaint case within three months of communication of this order, even if the accused persons do not cooperate.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to Principal District Judge, Darbhanga through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

tusharika/-

U T