CR. MISC./50620/2026 of PRAMOD PRASAD Vs The State of Bihar on 13 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

13-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1) and 340(2) of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that her husband had a coal shop, the petitioner used to purchase coal, hence became acquainted with the informant and her husband, further petitioner had brick kiln, next alleges that petitioner came and said to her husband that he has contanct in the Bank and if they required loan of Rs. 60,000/-, he will help in getting the loan sanctioned and thus asked for their Adhar Card, Pan Card and two photographs and the same was given as the petitioner had assured that the loan would be provided within a month, but the informant did not get the loan, hence she asked for her documents and photographs to return but the petitioner did not return despite assurance. It is next alleged that informant and her husband needed loan for upgrading their shop, hence contacted SBI, Naurangabagh Branch in March, 2024 when they came to know that a loan of Rs. 60,000/- was given to them and first installment was paid, thereafter installments stopped, thus alleges that petitioner, in connivance with bank employees, obtained the loan in their name by fraudulently mentioning the name of the village as Ojhavaliya and thus misappropriated the loan amount, further informant along with her husband went to the house of petitioner on 28.10.2025 for requesting him to repay the loan when they were abused and assaulted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that she along with her husband had gone to the Bank in March, 2024 for obtaining loan of Rs. 60,000/- when they came to know that already a loan of Rs. 60,000/- has been sanctioned in their favour and first installment is deposited but thereafter the EMI was not paid. It is thus submitted that when informant came to know that loan of Rs. 60,000/- was disbursed in her name in March, 2024 then why the informant went to the house of the petitioner on 28.10.2025 i.e. after more than a year after coming to know about the occurrence, it is also submitted that thereafter a complaint case came to be filed on 09.12.2025 i.e. after more than a month after 28.10.2025, it is thus submitted that theses aspects as transpired from the allegation itself create aspersion, it is further submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 68 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

7. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

vikram/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T