Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a BNS case alleging they sold mortgaged land concealing the encumbrance. The court referred the dispute to District Mediation Centre with interim protection against coercive action and conditional directions on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5319 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER
petitioners; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5319 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 2/7
Despite the subsisting mortgage, the accused allegedly sold the same property to the informant through a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2021 for a consideration of 15,00,000/-, falsely₹ representing that the land was free from all encumbrances. The informant came to know in August 2025, through a newspaper publication, that the financial institution had taken possession of the land with the assistance of the district administration on account of the outstanding mortgage. It is further alleged that the accused had dishonestly cheated the informant by suppressing the material fact of the mortgage and executing a false sale deed, causing wrongful loss to the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5319 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 3/7
on instructions, submitted that the parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 17.07.2026.
" 12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."
(emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5319 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 4/7
Difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating
35. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting of an offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations read as under :
“9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are : (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property; (ii) that person entrusted : (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5319 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 5/7
he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”
36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of
trust (Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and
(2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or
(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420IPC, the essential ingredients are:
(1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or
(3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712.
37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception."
before the learned District Court on or before 17.07.2026, so
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5319 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 6/7
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5319 of 2026(4) dt.01-07-2026 7/7
to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to the petitioners shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the petitioners in a cheating case arising from sale of mortgaged land, pending mediation between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Paramjeet Batra v. State of UttarakhandRelied on¶9
(2013) 11 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr.Referred¶10
(2025) SCC Online SC 1575 · Who else cites this
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Relied on¶11
Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar
Nutan Kumari
The State of Bihar
Balram Kumar
Purnendu Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
